1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}

3: %\documentstyle[11pt,tighten,epsfig,graphicx,color]{article}

4: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}

5: %\usepackage{amssymb,xspace,epsfig,graphicx,color}

6: \documentclass[prd,12pt]{revtex4}

7: \usepackage{amssymb}%,aps,floats,tighten,epsfig,graphicx,color

8: \usepackage{amsmath}

9: \usepackage{graphicx}

10: \usepackage{color}

11: \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.jpg,.jpeg,.pdf,.png,.mps,.eps,.ps}

12: 

13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

14: 

15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

16: %\def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

17: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

18: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

20: \newcommand{\ena}{\end{eqnarray}}

21: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}

22: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}

23: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}

24: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \rlap

25: {\raise.2ex\hbox{$<$}}}

26: \lower.9ex\hbox{\kern-.190em $\sim$}}}

27: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \rlap

28: {\raise.2ex\hbox{$>$}}}

29: \lower.9ex\hbox{\kern-.190em $\sim$}}}

30: \newcommand{\un}[1]{_{\mbox{\scriptsize #1}}}

31: \newcommand{\puis}[1]{$^{#1}$}

32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

33: 

34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

35: \newcommand{\app}[3]{{\it Astropart.\ Phys.}\ #2{\bf #1} #3 }

36: \newcommand{\hepex}[1]{{\tt hep-ex/#1}}

37: \newcommand{\hepth}[1]{{\tt hep-th/#1}}

38: \newcommand{\hepph}[1]{{\tt hep-ph/#1}}

39: \newcommand{\physics}[1]{{\tt physics/#1}}

40: \newcommand{\astroph}[1]{{\tt astro-ph/#1}}

41: \newcommand{\prep}[3]{#2\ {\it Phys.\ Rep.}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

42: \newcommand{\plb}[3]{#2\ {\it Phys.\ Lett.\ B}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

43: \newcommand{\npb}[3]{#2\ {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ B}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

44: \newcommand{\cpc}[3]{#2\ {\it Comm.\ Phys.\ Comm.}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

45: \renewcommand{\apj}[3]{#2\ {\it Astrophys.\ J.}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

46: \newcommand{\aeta}[3]{#2\ {\it Astron.\ {\&}\ Astrophys.}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

47: \newcommand{\pr}[3]{#2\ {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

48: \renewcommand{\prl}[3]{#2\ {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf #1} #3 }

49: \renewcommand{\prd}[3]{#2\ {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ D}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

50: \renewcommand{\pra}[3]{#2\ {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ A}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

51: \renewcommand{\rmp}[3]{#2\ {\it Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

52: \newcommand{\rnc}[3]{#2\ {\it Riv.\ Nuovo\ Cim.}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

53: \newcommand{\zfpc}[3]{#2\ {\it Z.\ Phys.\ C}\ {\bf #1} #3 }

54: \newcommand{\jpb}[3]{#2\ {\it J.\ Phys.\ B:\ Atom Mol. Opt. Phys.} {\bf #1} #3 }

55: \newcommand{\href}[2]{#1}

56: %\newcommand{\email}[1]{\tt #1}

57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

58: 

59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

60: \newcommand{\dl}{\mbox{$d_{\rm L}$}}

61: \newcommand{\msol}{\mbox{$M_{\odot}$}}

62: \newcommand{\lsol}{\mbox{$L_{\odot}$}}

63: \newcommand{\pM}{\mbox{$P_{\rm M}$}}

64: \newcommand{\pL}{\mbox{$P_{\Lambda}$}}

65: \newcommand{\rhoM}{\mbox{$\rho_{\rm M}$}}

66: \newcommand{\rhoL}{\mbox{$\rho_{\Lambda}$}}

67: \newcommand{\rclose}{\mbox{$\rho_{C}^{\, 0}$}}

68: \newcommand{\omegaM}{\mbox{$\Omega_{\rm cdm}$}}

69: \newcommand{\omegaB}{\mbox{$\Omega_{\rm b}$}}

70: \newcommand{\omegaL}{\mbox{$\Omega_{\Lambda}$}}

71: \newcommand{\omegaK}{\mbox{$\Omega_{\rm K}$}}

72: \newcommand{\omegachi}{\mbox{$\Omega_{\chi}$}}

73: \newcommand{\Ochi}{\mbox{$\Omega_{\chi} \, h^{2}$}}

74: \newcommand{\etaphi}{\mbox{$\eta_{\Phi}$}}

75: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

76: \newcommand{\yF}{\mbox{$y_{F}$}}

77: \newcommand{\xF}{\mbox{$x_{F}$}}

78: \newcommand{\TF}{\mbox{$T_{F}$}}

79: \newcommand{\Sa}{\mbox{$\sigma_{\rm an}$}}

80: \newcommand{\nA}{\mbox{$n_{\chi}$}}

81: \newcommand{\nAe}{\mbox{$n_{\chi}^{\, 0}$}}

82: \newcommand{\fA}{\mbox{$f_{\chi}$}}

83: \newcommand{\fF}{\mbox{$f_{F}$}}

84: \newcommand{\FA}{\mbox{$F_{\chi}$}}

85: \newcommand{\fAe}{\mbox{$f_{\chi}^{\, 0}$}}

86: \newcommand{\fAasy}{\mbox{$f_{\chi}^{\, \rm asy}$}}

87: \newcommand{\rchi}{\mbox{$\rho_{\chi}^{\, 0}$}}

88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

89: 

90: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

91: % Some color definitions

92: \definecolor{cyan}{cmyk}{1.,0.,0.,0.5}

93: \definecolor{magenta}{cmyk}{0.,1.,0.,0.5}

94: \definecolor{verdatre}{cmyk}{0.5,0.,0.5,0.5}

95: \definecolor{yellow}{cmyk}{0.,0.,0.2,0.0}

96: \definecolor{rouge}{cmyk}{0.,0.4,0.6,0.0}

97: \definecolor{orange}{cmyk}{0.,0.5,0.5,0.}

98: \definecolor{violet}{rgb}{0.5,0.,0.5}

99: \renewcommand\baselinestretch{1.5}

100: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

102: 

103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

104: %                      TITLE PAGE + ABSTRACT

105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

106: \begin{document}

107: %\begin{CJK*}{GBK}{song}

108: 

109: \noindent

110: \title{Reduced Dirac Equation And Lamb Shift As An Off-mass-shell \\

111: Effect In Quantum Electrodynamics}

112:  \vskip 1.cm

113: \author{Ni Guang-jiong $^{\rm a,b}$}%£¨Ä߹⾼£©

114: \email{\ pdx01018@pdx.edu}

115: \affiliation{$^{\rm a}$ Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, China\\

116: $^{\rm b}$ Department of Physics, Portland State University, Portland, OR97207, U. S. A.}

117: 

118: \author{Xu Jianjun}%£¨Ð콨¾ü£©

119: \email{\ xujj@fudan.edu.cn}

120: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, China}

121: 

122: \author{Lou Senyue$^{\rm c,d}$}%£¨Â¥É­ÔÀ£©

123: \email{\ sylou@sjtu.edu.cn}

124: \affiliation{$^{\rm c}$ Department of Physics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, China\\

125: $^{\rm d}$ Department of Physics, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China}

126: 

127: \vskip 0.5cm

128: \date{\today}

129: %\centerline{July 18,2002}

130: 

131: \vskip 0.5cm

132: \begin{abstract}

133: Based on the precision experimental data of energy-level

134: differences in hydrogenlike atoms, especially the $1S-2S$ transition

135: of hydrogen and deuterium, the necessity of introducing a reduced

136: Dirac equation with reduced mass as the substitution of

137: original electron mass is stressed. Based on new cognition about the essence of special relativity, we

138: provide a reasonable argument for reduced Dirac equation to have two symmetries, the

139: invariance under the (newly defined) space-time inversion and that

140: under the pure space inversion, in a noninertial frame. By using reduced

141: Dirac equation and within the framework of quantum electrodynamics in covariant

142: form, the Lamb shift can be evaluated (at one-loop level) as the

143: radiative correction on a bound electron staying in an

144: off-mass-shell state--a new approach eliminating the infrared

145: divergence. Hence the whole calculation, though with limited

146: accuracy, is simplified, getting rid of all divergences and free

147: of ambiguity.\\

148: {\bf Keywords}:\;Reduced Dirac Equation, Lamb shift, off-mass-shell\\

149: {\bf PACC}:\; 0365, 1110G, 1220D

150: \end{abstract}

151: 

152: \maketitle \vskip 1cm

153: %\numberwithin{equation}{section}

154: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

155: % INTRODUCTION

156: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

157: \section{Introduction}

158: \label{sec:introduction}

159: 

160: \vskip 0.1cm As is well known, the Dirac equation for electron in

161: a hydrogenlike atom is usually treated as a one-body equation with

162: the nucleus being an inert core having infinite mass and exerting

163: a potential $V(r)=-\frac{Z\alpha}{r}\ \ (\hbar=c=1)$ on the

164: electron. Then the rigorous solution of energy levels reads[1]:

165: \bea

166:  E_{nj}&=&m_ef(n,j)   \label{1-1}\\

167:  f(n,j)&=&\left[1+\frac{(Z\alpha)^2}{(n-\beta)^2}\right]^{-\frac{1}{2}}\label{1-2}\\

168:  \beta&=&j+\frac{1}{2}-\sqrt{(j+\frac{1}{2})^2-(Z\alpha)^2}

169:  \label{1-3}

170: \ena

171: 

172: where $j$ is the total angular momentum. The expansion of $f(n,j)$ to

173: the power of $(Z\alpha)^6$ is given as \cite{1}

174: 

175: \beq\begin{array}{l}

176: f(n,j)=1-\frac{(Z\alpha)^2}{2n^2}-\frac{(Z\alpha)^4}{2n^3}\left(\frac{1}{j+\frac{1}{2}}

177: -\frac{3}{4n}\right)\\

178: -\frac{(Z\alpha)^6}{8n^3}\left[\frac{1}{(j+\frac{1}{2})^3}

179: +\frac{3}{n(j+\frac{1}{2})^2}+\frac{5}{2n^3}-\frac{6}{n^2(j+\frac{1}{2})}\right]+\cdots

180: \label{1-4}

181: \end{array}\eeq

182: 

183: Obviously, besides the rest energy of the electron given by the

184: first term, the second term has exactly the form of Bohr energy

185: level except that the mass $m_e$ must be replaced by the reduced

186: mass

187: 

188: \beq \mu=\frac{m_em_N}{m_e+m_N}\equiv\frac{m_em_N}{M}

189: \label{1-5}

190: \eeq

191: 

192: with $m_N$ being the mass of the nucleus and $M=m_e+m_N$.

193: 

194: However, as discussed in Refs.\cite{1} and \cite{2}, the concept

195: of reduced mass in relativistic quantum mechanics (RQM) is

196: ambiguous to some extent. Beginning from 1950's, a number of

197: authors have been devoting a great effort at the level of two-body

198: RQM and that of quantum electrodynamics (QED) to take account of the recoil effect   \cite{3,4,1}, incorporating their

199: results in a compact form (to order of $\alpha^4$):

200: 

201: \beq

202: E=M+\mu[f(n,j)-1]-\frac{{\mu}^2}{2M}[f(n,j)-1]^2+\frac{(Z\alpha)^4{\mu}^3}{2n^3m_N^2}

203: \left[\frac{1}{j+\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{1}{l+\frac{1}{2}}\right](1-{\delta}_{l0})

204: \label{1-6}

205: \eeq

206: A comprehensive review on the theory of hydrogenlike atoms can be found in Ref.\cite{27}.

207: The aim of this paper is two-fold: First, based on the

208: experimental data of hydrogen $1S-2S$ transition frequency

209: \cite{5} and its isotope shift of hydrogen and deuterium \cite{6},

210: we stress the necessity of the introduction of reduced mass $\mu$

211: (section II) before we are able to argue the reasonableness of

212: introducing a "reduced Dirac equation" with $\mu$ as the

213: substitution of $m_e$ (section III). Second, based on above

214: conception, we will present a calculation of Lamb Shift (LS) as an

215: off-mass-shell effect by performing the evaluation of self-energy

216: diagrams of electron (section IV) and photon (section V) as well

217: as the vertex function (section VI) at the one-loop level of

218: QED in covariant form. The new insight

219: of our calculation is focused on the regularization renormalization

220: method (RRM). As initiated by J-F Yang \cite{7} and elaborated in

221: a series of papers (\cite{8:a,8:b,9,24,25,26} and references therein), we can get

222: rid of all ultra violet divergences in the calculation of quantum

223: field theory (QFT). Furthermore, in this paper, we will be able to

224: get rid of the annoying infrared divergence in the vertex function

225: by treating the electron moving off its mass-shell to certain

226: extent which is fixed through the evaluation of self-energy

227: diagram or by the Virial theorem. Based on above improvements, the

228: one-loop calculation yields values of LS in a simple but

229: semi-quantitative way (section VII and VIII). Although the

230: accuracy is limited at one-loop level, we hope our approach could

231: be served as a new starting point for calculations at high-loop

232: order to get accurate results at a comparably low labor cost. The

233: final section IX and Appendix will contain a summary and discussion.

234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

235: % Transition

236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

237: \section{The $1S-2S$ Transition of Atomic Hydrogen and Deuterium}

238: \label{sec:transition}

239: 

240: \vskip 0.1cm

241: 

242: In the last decade, thanks to remarkable advances in high

243: resolution laser spectroscopy and optical frequency metrology, the

244: $1S-2S$ two-photon transition in atomic hydrogen $H$ (or deuterium

245: $D$) with its natural linewidth of only $1.3 Hz$ had been measured

246: to a very high precision. In 1997, Udem \etal determined the

247: $1S-2S$ interval of $H$ being \cite{5}

248: 

249: \beq f^{(H)}(1S-2S)=2466061413187.34(84)\ \ kHz

250: \label{2-1}

251: \eeq

252: 

253: Even four years earlier, Schmidt-Kalar \etal ~measured the

254: isotope-shift of the $1S-2S$ transition of $H$ and $D$ to an

255: accuracy of $3.7\times 10^{-8}$\cite{6}, giving (as quoted in

256: \cite{10}):

257: 

258: \beq \Delta f\equiv f^{(D)}(2S-1S)-f^{(H)}(2S-1S)=670994337(22)\ \ kHz

259: \label{2-2}

260: \eeq

261: (In 1998, Huber \etal measured a more accurate data \cite{28}: $670994334.64(15)\ kHz$).

262: which is of the order of $10^{-4}$ in comparison with Eq.(\ref{2-1}).

263: As pointed out in Ref.\cite{6}, this $671\ GHz$ isotope-shift can

264: be ascribed almost entirely to the different masses of proton

265: ($p$) and deuteron ($d$). And the nuclear volume effects become

266: important because the QED effects cancel considerably in the

267: isotope shift.

268: 

269: Here, we wish to emphasize that in the first approximation, both

270: experimental data (\ref{2-1}) and (\ref{2-2}) can be well

271: accounted for by simply resorting to Eq.(\ref{1-1}) with $m_e$

272: replaced by the reduced mass

273: 

274: \beq \mu_H=\frac{m_em_p}{m_e+m_p},\ \ \

275: \mu_D=\frac{m_em_d}{m_e+m_d}

276: \label{2-3}

277: \eeq

278: 

279: for $H$ and $D$ respectively.

280: 

281: Indeed, adopting the following updated values \cite{10,11,12,13}

282: 

283: \bea

284: \alpha&=&(137.03599944)^{-1},\ \ \

285: {\alpha}^2=0.532513542\times10^{-4}\\

286: {\alpha}^4&=&0.283570673\times10^{-8},\ \ \

287: {\alpha}^6=0.151005223\times10^{-12}\\

288: m_e&=&0.51099906\ \ MeV=1.2355897\times10^{20}\ \ Hz\\

289: R_{\infty}&=&\frac{1}{2}{\alpha}^2m_e=3.28984124\times10^{15}\ \

290: Hz\\

291: \frac{m_p}{m_e}&=&1836.1526665

292:  \label{data}

293:  \ena

294: 

295: and denoting

296: \bea

297: \frac{m_e}{m_p}&=&b_H=5.446170255\times10^{-4},\ \ \

298: \frac{1}{1+b_H}=0.999455679\\

299: \frac{m_e}{m_d}&=&b_D=2.724436319\times10^{-4},\ \ \

300: \frac{1}{1+b_D}=0.99972763

301: \label{data2}

302: \ena

303: 

304: we can calculate the energy difference of $2S$ and $1S$ of $H$

305: through Eq.(\ref{1-1}) with $m_e$ replaced by $\mu_H$ (the superscript

306: RDE refers to the reduced Dirac equation)

307: 

308: \bea

309: \Delta E^{RDE}_{H}(2S-1S)&=&\mu_H[f(2,1/2)-f(1,1/2)]\nonumber \\

310: &=&\frac{m_e}{1+b_H}(1.996950159\times10^{-5})\nonumber \\

311: &=&1.2355897\times10^{20}\times0.999455679\times1.996950159\times10^{-5}\nonumber \\

312: &=&2.466067984\times10^{15}\ \ Hz

313: \label{2-4}

314: \ena

315: 

316: which is only a bit larger than the experimental data Eq.(\ref{2-1})

317: with accuracy $3\times10^{-6}$. However, a more stringent test of

318: RDE should be the isotope shift of $H$ and $D$. We have

319: 

320: \beq

321: \frac{1}{1+b_D}-\frac{1}{1+b_H}=(b_H-b_D)-(b^2_H-b^2_D)+(b^3_H-b^3_D)+\cdots=2.719511528\times10^{-4}

322: \label{2-5}

323: \eeq

324: 

325: \beq

326: \Delta

327: E^{RDE}_{D-H}=(\mu_D-\mu_H)[f(2,1/2)-f(1,1/2)]=6.7101527879\times10^{11}\

328: \ Hz

329: \label{2-6}

330: \eeq

331: 

332: which has only a discrepancy larger than the experimental data,

333: Eq.(\ref{2-2}) by $20.941\ MHz$ with accuracy $3\times10^{-5}$. Of

334: course, it is still not satisfied in an analysis of high precision

335: \cite{6}. Let us resort to the Eq.(6), where the third term does

336: provide a further modification:

337: 

338: \bea

339: &-&\frac{1}{2}m_e[\frac{b_D}{(1+b_D)^3}-\frac{b_H}{(1+b_H)^3}]\{[f(2,1/2)-1]^2-[f(1,1/2)-1]^2\}\nonumber\\

340: &=&\frac{1}{2}m_e[(b_H-b_D)-3(b^2_H-b^2_D)+\cdots](-6.646361554\times10^{-10})=-11.176

341: \ MHz

342: \label{2-7}

343: \ena

344: 

345: which brings the discrepancy between the theory and experimental

346: down to less than $10\ MHz$.

347: 

348: Although the detail explanation for this discrepancy remains quite

349: complicated\cite{6}, the above comparison is enough to convince us

350: that the inevitable appearance of reduced mass in the RDE or

351: Eq.(6) is by no means a simple fortune. It must have a deep reason

352: from a theoretical point of view. Notice further that once the

353: conditions $m_e\ll m_p$ and $m_e\ll m_d$ hold, the difference  of

354: spin between $p$ and $d$ seems not so important. So in next

355: section, we will strive to justify the reduced Dirac equation on a

356: reasonable basis. Of course, it is still an approximate one, but

357: seems much better than the original Dirac equation when dealing

358: with hydrogenlike atoms.

359: 

360: 

361: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

362: % Reduced Dirac Equation

363: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

364: \section{Reduced Mass and Reduced Dirac Equation}

365: \label{sec:decoupling}

366: 

367: Consider a system of two particles with rest masses $m_1$ and

368: $m_2$. Their coordinates in the center-of-mass (CM) system are ${\mathbf r}_1$ and ${\mathbf r}_2$ respectively,

369: as shown in Fig.1. If there is a potential $V(r)=V(|{\mathbf

370: r_1-r_2}|)$ between them, two equations $m_1\ddot{\mathbf

371: r}_1=-\nabla_rV(r)$ and $m_2\ddot{\mathbf r}_2=\nabla_rV(r)$ will

372: reduce to one:

373: 

374: \beq

375: \mu\frac{d^2{\mathbf r}}{dt^2}=-\nabla_rV(r), \ \ \

376: (\mu=\frac{m_1m_2}{m_1+m_2})

377: \label{3-1}

378: \eeq

379: 

380: At first sight, the definition of center-of -mass (CM) in

381: classical mechanics $m_1r_1=m_2r_2$ becomes doubtful in the theory

382: of special relativity (SR) because the mass is no longer a

383: constant. But actually, we can still introduce the coordinate of

384: CM in the laboratory coordinate system (LCS) (with ${\mathbf

385: r}'_1$ and ${\mathbf r}'_2$ being the coordinates of $m_1$ and

386: $m_2$):

387: 

388: \beq

389: R=\frac{1}{M}(m_1{\mathbf r}'_1+m_2{\mathbf r}'_2)=(X,Y,Z),\

390: \ \ (M=m_1+m_2)

391: \label{3-2}

392: \eeq

393: 

394: and the relative coordinate of $m_1$ and $m_2$ (${\mathbf r}_i={\mathbf r}'_i-{\mathbf R}, \, i=1,2$) :

395: 

396: \beq

397: {\mathbf r}={\mathbf r}'_1-{\mathbf r}'_2={\mathbf

398: r}_1-{\mathbf r}_2=(x,y,z)

399: \label{3-3}

400: \eeq

401: 

402: Here the motion of CM in the LCS is assumed to be slow and so

403: 

404: \beq

405: \frac{\partial}{\partial

406: x'_1}=\frac{m_1}{M}\frac{\partial}{\partial

407: X}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\ \ \ \frac{\partial}{\partial

408: x'_2}=\frac{m_2}{M}\frac{\partial}{\partial

409: X}-\frac{\partial}{\partial x}

410: \label{3-4}

411: \eeq

412: 

413: Notice that the momentum $\mathbf P$ of CM and the relative

414: momentum ${\mathbf p}_r$ becomes operator in quantum mechanics

415: (QM) without explicit dependence on mass:

416: 

417: \beq

418: {\mathbf P}=-i\hbar\nabla_{\mathbf R},\ \ \ {\mathbf

419: p}_r=-i\hbar\nabla_{\mathbf r}

420: \label{3-5}

421: \eeq

422: 

423: Thus the momenta of $m_1$ and $m_2$ in laboratory coordinate

424: system (LCS) read:

425: 

426: \beq

427: {\mathbf p}'_1=-i\hbar\nabla_{{\mathbf

428: r}'_1}=\frac{m_1}{M}{\mathbf P}+{\mathbf p}_r,\ \ \ {\mathbf

429: p}'_2=-i\hbar\nabla_{{\mathbf r}'_2}=\frac{m_2}{M}{\mathbf

430: P}-{\mathbf p}_r

431: \label{3-6}

432: \eeq

433: 

434: Since the center-of-mass coordinate system (CMCS) is also an inertial frame which can be transformed

435: from the LCS via a linear Lorentz transformation, it is defined by

436: the condition that $\mathbf P=0$ in CMCS. In other words, CMCS is

437: defined by the condition ${\mathbf p}_1+{\mathbf p}_2=0$, or from

438: Eq.(\ref{3-6}):

439: 

440: \beq

441: {\mathbf p}'_1=-i\hbar\nabla_{{\mathbf r}'_1}={\mathbf p}_r,\

442: \ \ {\mathbf p}'_2=-i\hbar\nabla_{{\mathbf r}'_2}=-{\mathbf p}_r

443: \label{3-7}

444: \eeq

445: 

446: Evidently, the above definition of CMCS remains valid in the realm

447: of relativistic QM (RQM) even the exact meaning of CM seems

448: obscure to some extent due to the conjugation relation of $a$ particle's position and its momentum, see Fig.1.

449: 

450: Now, from Eq.(\ref{3-7}), it is natural to replace $\mathbf p_1$ and

451: $\mathbf p_2$ by ${\mathbf p}_r$, reducing the two-particle

452: degrees of freedom to one. In the meantime, the origin of CMCS is

453: discarded, it is substituted  by the position of $m_2$ (${\mathbf

454: r}={\mathbf r}_1-{\mathbf r}_2$). We will call the system

455: associated with $\mathbf r$ the relative motion coordinate system

456: (RMCS), which should be viewed as a deformation of CMCS. The

457: transformation from CMCS to RMCS is by no means a linear one.

458: Rather, the origin of RMCS ($m_2$) is moving non-uniformly in the CMCS.

459: Therefore, while rest masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ remain the same in

460: both LCS and CMCS, they reduce to one mass

461: $\mu=\frac{m_1m_2}{m_1+m_2}$ for $m_1$ in RMCS (or for $m_2$ if

462: $m_1$ is chosen as the origin of RMCS).

463: 

464: Let us express the total energy $E=E_1+E_2$ in CMCS in terms of

465: $p_r$ and reduced mass $\mu$ ($\mu=\frac{m_1m_2}{M},\

466: M=m_1+m_2$), where

467: 

468: \beq

469: E_1=\sqrt{m_1^2+p_1^2}=\sqrt{m_1^2+p_r^2},\ \ \

470: E_2=\sqrt{m_2^2+p_2^2}=\sqrt{m_2^2+p_r^2}

471: \label{3-8}

472: \eeq

473: 

474: Treating all $p_1,p_2$ and $p_r$ being $c$-numbers, we have

475: 

476: \beq

477: E^2=(E_1+E_2)^2=M^2+\frac{M}{\mu}p_r^2+\frac{1}{4\mu^2}p_r^4(4-\frac{M}{\mu})+\cdots

478: \label{3-9}

479: \eeq

480: where the expansion in $p_r$ is kept to the order

481: of $p_r^4$. Two extreme cases will be considered separately:

482: 

483: {\bf A}. $m_2\gg m_1,\ \  \mu\lesssim m_1, \ \ M\gg\mu$: \bea

484: E^2&=&M^2\left[1+\frac{1}{\mu

485: M}p_r^2-\frac{1}{4M\mu^3}p_r^4(1-\frac{4\mu}{M})+\cdots\right]\nonumber\\

486: E&=&M\left[1+\frac{1}{2\mu

487: M}p_r^2-\frac{1}{8M\mu^3}p_r^4(1-\frac{3\mu}{M})+\cdots\right]\nonumber\\

488: &=&M+\frac{1}{2\mu}p_r^2-\frac{1}{8\mu^3}p_r^4+\cdots\nonumber\\

489: &\simeq &M-\mu+\sqrt{\mu^2+p_r^2}\simeq m_2+(m_1-\mu)+\sqrt{\mu^2+p_r^2}

490: \label{3-10}

491: \ena

492: 

493: \beq

494: E'\equiv E-m_2=(m_1-\mu)+\sqrt{\mu^2+p_r^2}

495: \label{3-11}

496: \eeq

497: 

498: {\bf B}. $m_1=m_2=m,\ \ \mu=\frac{m}{2},\ \  M=2m=4\mu$

499: Then to

500: the accuracy of $p_r^4$, we have :

501: 

502: \bea

503: E^2&=&M^2+\frac{M}{\mu}p_r^2=4m^2+4p_r^2\nonumber\\

504: E&=&2m+\frac{1}{2\mu}p_r^2-\frac{1}{32\mu^3}p_r^4+\cdots\nonumber\\

505: E'&\equiv &E-M=\frac{1}{2\mu}p_r^2-\frac{1}{32\mu^3}p_r^4\simeq

506: \frac{1}{2\mu}p_r^2,\ \ \ (\mbox{if}\ \ p_r^2\ll \mu^2)

507: \label{3-12}

508: \ena

509: 

510: It is interesting to see that after introducing $\mu$ and $p_r$,

511: the energy $E'$ in RMCS looks  quite "relativistic" in the case A

512: whereas it looks rather "non-relativistic" in the case B even both

513: of them are derived from the relativistic expressions, Eq.(\ref{3-8}),

514: approximately.

515: 

516: Since the RMCS is not an inertial system, the original mass of

517: $m_1$ in CM changes abruptly to $\mu$ as shown in Eq.(\ref{3-11}).

518: How can we derive the reduced Dirac equation (RDE) in RMCS?

519: Fortunately, we already found a basic symmetry, the space-time

520: inversion symmetry, which not only serves as the essence of

521: special relativity (SR), but also goes beyond it to derive the original Dirac equation and the

522: tachyon theory for neutrinos \cite{14,15,16,17}. Based on this symmetry,

523: we are going to derive the equation in RQM for case either A or B

524: respectively.

525: 

526: Let us consider case B ($m_1\simeq m_2$) first. The motivation is

527: stemming from the success of using the Schr\"{o}dinger equation to

528: heavy-quarkoniums like $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ in particle

529: physics (\cite{18}, see also \cite{15} \ \S 9.5 D). Ignoring the

530: spin of both $m_1$ and $m_2$, we assume the coupling equations

531: in laboratory system for the two-particle system as:

532: 

533: \beq

534: \left\{

535: \begin{array}{ll}

536: i\hbar\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial

537: t}&=(m_1+m_2)c^2\varphi+V(|{\mathbf

538: r'_1-\mathbf r'_2}|)(\varphi+\chi)-(\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_1}\nabla^2_{\mathbf

539: r'_1}+\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_2}\nabla^2_{\mathbf r'_2})(\varphi+\chi)\\

540: i\hbar\frac{\partial\chi}{\partial

541: t}&=-(m_1+m_2)c^2\chi-V(|{\mathbf

542: r'_1-\mathbf r'_2}|)(\varphi+\chi)+(\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_1}\nabla^2_{\mathbf

543: r'_1}+\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_2}\nabla^2_{\mathbf r'_2})(\varphi+\chi)

544: \end{array}

545: \right.

546: \label{3-13}

547: \eeq

548: 

549: where $\varphi=\varphi({\mathbf r'_1,\mathbf r'_2},t)$ and

550: $\chi=\chi({\mathbf r'_1,\mathbf r'_2},t)$ are hidden "particle" and

551: "antiparticle" fields of the two-particle system (From now on, the ${\mathbf r}'_i(i=1,2)$ is the flowing coordinate of "fields"

552: in QM, \ie, that of "fictitious point particles". See Fig.1).

553: Eq.(\ref{3-13}) remains invariant under the (newly defined) space-time inversion

554: (${\mathbf r'_1\rightarrow-\mathbf r'_1,

555: \mathbf r'_2\rightarrow-\mathbf r'_2},t\rightarrow-t$):

556: 

557: \beq \left\{

558: \begin{array}{ll}

559: \varphi({-\mathbf r'_1,-\mathbf r'_2},-t)&\longrightarrow\chi({\mathbf

560: r'_1,\mathbf r'_2},t)\\

561: \chi({-\mathbf r'_1,-\mathbf r'_2},-t)&\longrightarrow\varphi({\mathbf

562: r'_1,\mathbf r'_2},t)

563: \end{array}\right.

564: \label{3-14}

565: \eeq

566: 

567: \beq

568: V({-\mathbf r'_1,-\mathbf r'_2},-t)\longrightarrow V({\mathbf r'_1,\mathbf r'_2},t)

569: \label{3-15}

570: \eeq

571: 

572: Note that, however, the time $t$ is not contained in $V$ explicitly. Eq.(\ref{3-15}) merely means that both $m_1$ and $m_2\ (m_1\approx m_2)$

573: transform into their antiparticles under the space-time inversion.

574: Actually, the hidden antiparticle field $\chi$ enhances in nearly

575: equal strength in $m_1$ and $m_2$ when fictitious particles' velocities

576: increase with the enhancement of attractive potential $V(r)$.

577: 

578: After introducing the CM coordinate ${\mathbf

579: R}=\frac{1}{M}(m_1{\mathbf r'}_1+m_2{\mathbf r'}_2)$, ($M=m_1+m_2$)

580: and relative coordinate $\mathbf r=\mathbf r'_1-\mathbf r'_2$, and setting

581: 

582: \beq

583: \varphi=\Phi+i\frac{\hbar}{Mc^2}\dot{\Phi},\ \ \ \

584: \chi=\Phi-i\frac{\hbar}{Mc^2}\dot{\Phi}

585: \label{3-16}

586: \eeq

587: 

588: we find ($\mu=\frac{m_1m_2}{M}$)

589: 

590: \beq

591: \ddot{\Phi}-c^2\nabla^2_R\Phi-c^2\frac{M}{\mu}\nabla^2_r\Phi+\frac{1}{\hbar^2}(M^2c^4+2VMc^2)\Phi=0

592: \label{3-17} \eeq

593: 

594: Its stationary solution reads

595: 

596: \beq

597: \Phi({\mathbf R,\mathbf r},t)=\psi(\mathbf

598: r)\exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}({\mathbf P\cdot \mathbf R}-Et)\right]

599: \label{3-18}

600: \eeq

601: 

602: where $E$ is the total energy of the system while $\mathbf P$ the

603: momentum of CM. The reduced "one-body" equation for $\psi(\mathbf r)$ turns out to

604: be: \footnotemark[1]

605: \footnotetext[1]{With Eq.(\ref{3-15}), Eq.(\ref{3-17}) is invariant under the space-time inversion (${\bf r}\to -{\bf r},

606: t\to -t$). Equivalently, under the mass inversion ($m_1\to -m_1,m_2\to -m_2$), Eq.(\ref{3-17}) and Eq.(\ref{3-19}) remain

607: invariant in the sense that not only $\mu\to -\mu, M\to -M$, but also $V({\bf r})\to -V({\bf r}), \varepsilon\to -\varepsilon$.

608: Notice that, however, the simultaneous inversion of $m_1$ and $m_2$ implies $m_1\simeq m_2$, so both particles change under their

609: mutual interaction $V({\bf r})$ simultaneously. Here $V$, being the "internal potential energy" of two-body system, was called

610: as a "scalar potential". We see that either the invariance under the space-time inversion or that under the mass inversion

611: is capable of showing the particle-antiparticle symmetry (\ie, relativistic nature) of a system essentially. }

612: 

613: \beq

614: \left\{

615: \begin{array}{ll}

616: &\left[-\dfrac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\nabla^2_{\mathbf r}+V(\mathbf r)\right]\psi(\mathbf

617: r)=\varepsilon\psi(\mathbf r)\\[4mm]

618: &\varepsilon=\dfrac{1}{2Mc^2}(E^2-M^2c^4-{\mathbf P}^2c^2)

619: \end{array}

620: \right.

621: \label{3-19}

622: \eeq

623: 

624: We set $\mathbf P=0$ (\ie  turn to CMCS) and denote the binding

625: energy $B=Mc^2-E$, yielding:

626: 

627: \beq

628: B=Mc^2\left[1-(1+\frac{2\varepsilon}{Mc^2})^{1/2}\right]=-\varepsilon+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\varepsilon^2}{Mc^2}-\cdots

629: \label{3-20}

630: \eeq

631: 

632: Notice that although Eq.(\ref{3-19}) looks like a

633: "non-relativistic" stationary Schr\"{o}dinger equation, it is

634: essentially relativistic. This can be seen from its remarkable

635: property that the eigenvalue $\varepsilon$ has a lower bound

636: $-\frac{1}{2}Mc^2$, corresponding to $E_{\mbox{min}}=0\

637: (B_{\mbox{max}}=M)$!

638: 

639: An example is: consider "positronium" composed of $e^+$ and $e^-$ with charge $Ze$ and $-Ze$ respectively. Once when the "fictitious

640: charge number" $Z$ increases from $1$ to $Z_{max}=(\frac{4}{\alpha^2})^{1/4}=16.555$, the whole bound system would have lowest ground

641: energy $E_{min}=0$!

642: So Eq.(\ref{3-19}) is really a relativistic QM equation capable of

643: giving a nonperturbative solution under the strong coupling.

644: 

645: Eq.(\ref{3-19}) provides a justification (realization) of

646: conjecture Eq.(\ref{3-12}) relevant to case B ($m_1\simeq m_2$) where

647: the spin of both particles is merely of second importance.

648: 

649: Now let us turn to case A where $m_2\gg m_1$, taking the spin of

650: $m_1$ into account but ignoring that of $m_2$ as before. Based on

651: the experience in case B, also because of great difficulty to

652: derive the equation starting from the laboratory system for this

653: case A, we directly introduce the reduced Dirac equation (RDE) in

654: the RMCS as a pair of coupled equations of two-component spinors

655: $\varphi({\mathbf r},t)$ and $\chi({\mathbf r},t)$, ($c=\hbar=1$)

656: 

657: \beq

658: \left\{

659: \begin{array}{ll}

660: i\dot{\varphi}&=i{\mathbf \sigma}_1\cdot\nabla_{\mathbf r}\chi+\mu\varphi+V({\mathbf r})\varphi\\

661: i\dot{\chi}&=i{\mathbf \sigma}_1\cdot\nabla_{\mathbf r}\varphi-\mu\chi+V({\mathbf r})\chi

662: \end{array}

663: \right.

664: \label{3-21}

665: \eeq

666: with $\mu$ replacing $m_1$. Here $\mathbf \sigma_1$ are Pauli matrices acting on the spin

667: space of particle $m_1$. Eq.(\ref{3-21}) is invariant under the

668: space-time inversion $({\mathbf r\rightarrow-\mathbf r},t\rightarrow-t), \

669: \varphi(-{\mathbf r},-t)\rightarrow \chi({\mathbf r},t),\ \chi(-{\mathbf r},-t)\rightarrow \varphi({\mathbf r},t)$

670: whereas we assume

671: 

672: \beq

673: V(-{\mathbf r},-t)\longrightarrow-V({\mathbf r},t)

674: \label{3-22}

675: \eeq

676: here in contrast to Eq.(\ref{3-15}) for the case B. \footnotemark[2]

677: \footnotetext[2]{For a hydrogenlike atom, $V(r)=-\frac{Ze^2}{r}$ does not contain time $t$ explicitly.

678: Eq.(\ref{3-22}) merely means that under the space-time inversion, the electron transforms into a position whereas the nucleus

679: remains unchanged. See point (a) of section IX. Previously, the $V$ in Eq.(\ref{3-22}) was called as a "vector potential",

680: meaning the "potential energy" of the electron in an "external field" of nucleus. Note that, formally, Eq.(\ref{3-21}) remains

681: invariant under a mass inversion as $\mu\to -\mu, \phi\to\chi, \chi\to\phi$ ($V({\bf r})$ remains unchanged) in a noninertial

682: frame $RMCS$. Actually, since $m_1=m_e\to -m_e$, but $m_2=m_N\to m_N, \mu\to -\mu(1+\frac{2m_e}{M})$. So Eq.(\ref{3-21})

683: has an inaccuracy up to $\frac{2m_e}{M}$ ($<1.1\times 10^{-3}$ for $H$).}

684: 

685: The reasons are as follows: (a) Eq.(\ref{3-21}) should degenerate into the

686: original Dirac equation when $m_2\rightarrow\infty$,

687: $\mu=\frac{m_1m_2}{m_1+m_2}\rightarrow m_1$. (b) Since now $m_2\gg

688: m_1$ (but $m_2\neq\infty$), $m_1$ is moving much faster than $m_2$

689: in the CMCS. Hence the antiparticle field $\chi$ enhances much

690: appreciably in $m_1$ than that in $m_2$, a situation totally

691: different from that in the case B where $m_1\approx m_2$. (c) If

692: instead of Eq.(\ref{3-22}), we still assume $V(-{\mathbf

693: r},-t)\longrightarrow V({\mathbf r},t)$ like Eq.(\ref{3-15}) and

694: change the sign before $V(\mathbf r)$ in the second equation of

695: Eq.(\ref{3-21}) to keep its invariance under the space-time

696: inversion, then we would get an equation which would lead to a

697: reversed fine-structure of atom (\eg, the $P_{1/2}$ state would

698: lie above the $P_{3/2}$ state), a wrong prediction obviously

699: excluded by experiments.

700: 

701: However, one kind of invariance is not enough to fix an equation. Indeed,

702: the beauty of Dirac equation or RDE is hidden in two symmetries:

703: besides the symmetry of space-time inversion, it has another

704: left-right (parity) symmetry. To see it, we define

705: 

706: \beq

707: \xi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi+\chi),\ \ \

708: \eta=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi-\chi)

709: \label{3-23}

710: \eeq

711: 

712: and recast Eq.(\ref{3-21}) into:

713: 

714: \beq

715: \left\{

716: \begin{array}{ll}

717: i\dot{\xi}&=i{\mathbf \sigma}_1\cdot\nabla_{\mathbf r}\xi+\mu\eta+V(\mathbf r)\xi\\

718: i\dot{\eta}&=-i{\mathbf \sigma}_1\cdot\nabla_{\mathbf r}\eta+\mu\xi+V(\mathbf r)\eta

719: \end{array}

720: \right.

721: \label{3-24}

722: \eeq

723: 

724: which is invariant under a pure space inversion (${\mathbf

725: r\rightarrow-\mathbf r},t\rightarrow t$) if assuming

726: 

727: \beq

728: \xi({-\mathbf r},t)\rightarrow\eta({\mathbf r},t),\ \

729: \eta({-\mathbf r},t)\rightarrow\xi({\mathbf r},t),\ \ V(-{\mathbf

730: r})\rightarrow V({\mathbf r})=V(r)

731: \label{3-25}

732: \eeq

733: 

734: The parity invariance of Dirac equation or RDE has a far-reaching

735: consequence that the Dirac particle is always a subluminal

736: one. By contrast, once the parity is violated to maximum, a

737: superluminal particle (tachyon) will emerge. Interestingly enough,

738: any theory capable of treating particle and antiparticle on an equal

739: footing must respect to the common basic symmetry---the

740: invariance of space-time inversion. The new insight of this

741: section is this symmetry can be applied even in a noninertial

742: frame---the RMCS. Of course, the validity of RDE can only be

743: verified by experiments as discussed in section II, although it is

744: still an approximate description of nature like any other theory

745: in physics. For further discussion, see section IX.

746: 

747: \section{Self-Energy Correction of a Bound Electron in Atom}

748: \label{sec:selfenergy}

749: 

750: In our understanding, one important reason why the calculations of

751: QED for electron in a hydrogenlike atom is so complicated lies in

752: the fact that while calculations are performed in the CMCS, the

753: center of potential (the nucleus with mass $m_2=m_N$) undergoes a

754: complex motion. So the recoil effect interwinds with the high-loop

755: correction of QED, as discussed in many chapters of the books

756: \cite{1} and \cite{2}. We will try to find an alternative approach

757: by adopting the RDE and doing calculation in the RMCS. Let us

758: begin with the Feynman diagram integral (FDI) of electron

759: self-energy at one-loop level, adopting the Bjorken-Drell metric

760: and rationalized Gaussian units with electron charge $-e(e>0)$,

761: see Fig.2(a) (\cite{8:a}).

762: 

763: \beq

764: -i\Sigma(p)=(ie)^2\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{ik^2}

765: \gamma^{\mu}\frac{i}{\not\!\!p-\not\!\!k-\mu}\gamma^{\nu}

766: \label{4-1}

767: \eeq

768: 

769: Here a free electron with reduced mass $\mu$ is moving at a

770: four-dimensional momentum $p$, whose spatial component is just the

771: relative momentum $\mathbf p_r$ discussed in the previous section,

772: $k$ is the momentum of virtual photon. As usual, a Feynman parameter $x$ will bring

773: Eq.(\ref{4-1}) into

774: 

775: \beq

776: -i\Sigma(p)=-e^2\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{N}{D}

777: \label{4-2}

778: \eeq

779: 

780: \beq

781: \frac{1}{D}=\int^1_0\frac{dx}{[k^2-2p\cdot

782: kx+(p^2-\mu^2)x]^2},\ \ \ N=-2(\not\!\!p-\not\!\!k)+4\mu

783: \label{4-3}

784: \eeq

785: 

786: ($\not\!\!p=p^\mu\gamma_\mu,\ p\cdot k=p^\mu k_\mu$). A shift in

787: momentum integration:$k\rightarrow K=k-xp$ recast Eq.(\ref{4-2})

788: into

789: 

790: \beq

791: -i\Sigma(p)=-e^2\int^1_0dx[-2(1-x)\not\!\!p+4\mu]I

792: \label{4-4}

793: \eeq

794: 

795: with a logarithmically divergent integral (in Minkowski momentum

796: space):

797: 

798: \beq I=\int\frac{d^4K}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{[K^2-M^2]^2},\ \ \

799: M^2=p^2x^2+(\mu^2-p^2)x \label{4-5} \eeq

800: 

801: Our new regularization-renormalization method (RRM) is based on a

802: cognition that the virtual process in the self-energy diagram does provide a radiative correction to the

803: electron mass but only when the electron is off the mass shell,

804: \ie, $p^2\not=\mu^2$. When it is on the mass shell, $p^2=\mu^2$,

805: the appearance of a divergent integral like $I$ in Eq.(\ref{4-5}) is

806: essentially a warning on the fact that to calculate the mass of

807: electron is beyond the ability of perturbative QED.

808: 

809: Let us consider the converse: if $\Sigma(p)$ does modify the

810: electron mass $\mu$ to some extent, it must comes from the

811: divergent integral $I$. However, the latter is a dimensionless

812: number, we can change the unit of $M$ (and $k$) at our disposal

813: without any change in the value of $I$. So any real change of

814: $\mu$ (on the mass shell) is incredible. The deeper reason lies in

815: a "principle of relativity" in epistemology: everything is moving

816: and becomes recognizable only in relationship with other things. What we can understand is either no

817: mass scale or two mass scales, but never one mass scale.

818: For instance, in the famous Gross-Neveu model \cite{19}, a massive

819: fermion is created only in accompanying with the change (phase

820: transition) of its environment (vacuum) which provides another

821: mass scale (a standard weight). Another example is just the change

822: of electron mass from $m_e$ to $\mu_H$ in a hydrogen atom due to

823: the coexistence of atom nucleus---the proton, this change is also

824: a nonperturbative effect.

825: 

826: Therefore, we expected too much in the past. There is no way to evaluate Eq.(\ref{4-5}) unambiguously

827: or pick out some finite and fixed modification on the mass $\mu$.

828: What we can do is to separate the valuable information carried by

829: Eq.(\ref{4-5}) from an arbitrary constant which will be introduced by a simple trick and then

830: fixed by the experimental data of $\mu$. We will see the

831: information telling us exactly how the value of $I$ changes when

832: the electron is moving off the mass shell.

833: 

834: To handle Eq.(\ref{4-5}), we perform a differentiation with respect

835: to the mass-square parameter $M^2$, then the integration with

836: respect to $K$ becomes convergent, yielding:

837: 

838: \beq

839: \frac{\partial I}{\partial

840: M^2}=\frac{-i}{(4\pi)^2}\frac{1}{M^2}

841: \label{4-6}

842: \eeq

843: 

844: which tells us that while the exact value of $I$ remains obscure,

845: its change linked with $M^2$ has a definite meaning. So we

846: reintegrate Eq.(\ref{4-6}) with respect to $M^2$ and arrive at

847: 

848: \beq I=\frac{-i}{(4\pi)^2}(\ln

849: M^2+C_1)=\frac{-i}{(4\pi)^2}\ln\frac{M^2}{\mu_2^2} \label{4-7}

850: \eeq

851: 

852: where an arbitrary constant $C_1=-\ln\mu_2^2$ is introduced

853: ($\mu_2$ should not be confused with the reduced mass $\mu$).

854: Further integration with respect to Feynman parameter $x$ leads to

855: 

856: \beq

857: \begin{array}{ll}

858:  \Sigma(p)&=A+B\not\!\!p\\

859: A&=\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\mu\left[2-2\ln\frac{\mu}{\mu_2}+\frac{(\mu^2-p^2)}{p^2}\ln\frac{(\mu^2-p^2)}{\mu^2}\right]\\

860: B&=\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\left[2\ln\frac{\mu}{\mu_2}-3-\frac{(\mu^2-p^2)}{p^2}

861: \left[1+\frac{(\mu^2+p^2)}{p^2}\ln\frac{(\mu^2-p^2)}{\mu^2}\right]\right]

862: \end{array}

863: \label{4-8}

864: \eeq

865: 

866: Using the chain approximation, we can derive the modification of

867: electron propagator as

868: 

869: \beq

870: \frac{i}{\not\!\!p-\mu}\rightarrow\frac{i}{\not\!\!p-\mu}\frac{1}{1-\frac{\Sigma(p)}{\not\!\!p-\mu}}

871: =\frac{iZ_2}{\not\!\!p-\mu_R}

872: \label{4-9}

873: \eeq

874: 

875: where

876: 

877: \beq

878: Z_2=\frac{1}{1-B}

879: \label{4-10}

880: \eeq

881: 

882: is the renormalization factor for wave function of electron and

883: 

884: \beq

885: \mu_R=\frac{\mu+A}{1-B}

886: \label{4-11}

887: \eeq

888: 

889: is the renormalized mass of $\mu$. The increment of mass reads

890: 

891: \beq

892: \delta\mu=\mu_R-\mu=\frac{A+\mu B}{1-B}

893: \label{4-12}

894: \eeq

895: 

896: For a free electron (in the atom), the mass-shell condition

897: $p^2=\mu^2$ should lead to

898: 

899: \beq

900: \delta\mu|_{p^2=\mu^2}=\frac{\alpha\mu}{4\pi}(5-6\ln\frac{\mu}{\mu_2})=0

901: \label{4-13}

902: \eeq

903: 

904: as discussed above\footnotemark[3]. So we must set $\mu_2=\mu e^{-5/6}$ which in

905: turn fixes

906: \footnotetext[3]{We will keep the same mass symbol $\mu$ through out high-loop calculations of QED and reconfirm (renormalize)

907: it at every step by experiment. Just like one has to reconfirm his plane ticket before his departure from the airport,

908: he must use the same name through out his entire journey \cite{8:b}.}

909: \beq

910: Z_2|_{p^2=\mu^2}=\frac{1}{1+\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}}\approx

911: 1-\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}

912: \label{4-14}

913: \eeq

914: 

915: However, the above evaluation further provides us with important

916: knowledge of $\delta\mu$ when electron is moving off the

917: mass-shell. Consider the similar diagram in Fig.(2b), we can

918: set on an average meaning that

919: 

920: \beq

921: p^2=\mu^2(1-\zeta)

922: \label{4-15}

923: \eeq

924: 

925: with $\zeta>0$, which implies from Eq.(\ref{4-12}) with Eq.(\ref{4-8})

926: that \cite{20}:

927: 

928: \beq

929: \delta\mu=\frac{\alpha\mu}{4\pi}\frac{(-\zeta+2\zeta\ln\zeta)}{1+\alpha/3\pi}

930: \label{4-16}

931: \eeq

932: 

933: where some terms of the order of $\zeta^2$ or $\zeta^2\ln\zeta$ are

934: neglected since $\zeta\ll1$. Eq.(\ref{4-16}) establishes the

935: correspondence between the mass modification $\delta\mu$ and the

936: parameter $\zeta$ describing the off-mass-shell extent of electron

937: in the bound state. For a hydrogenlike atom, we may ascribe

938: $\delta\mu$ to the (minus) binding energy of electron in the Bohr

939: theory:

940: 

941: 

942: \beq

943: \delta\mu=\varepsilon_n=-\frac{Z^2\alpha^2}{2n^2}\mu

944: \label{4-17}

945: \eeq

946: 

947: Then Eq.(\ref{4-16}) gives the value of $\zeta$ for fixed values $Z$

948: and $n$. We will see from the vertex function that these values of

949: $\zeta$ are crucial to the calculation of Lamb shift (sections

950: VII and VIII).

951: 

952: \section{Photon Self-energy}

953: 

954: As discussed in various text books \cite{21,22,23}, we encounter

955: the FDI of vacuum polarization Fig.2(c) as \cite{8:a}:

956: 

957: \beq \Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=-(-ie)^2Tr\int\frac{d^4\bar{p}}{(2\pi)^4}

958: \gamma_{\mu}\frac{i}{\not\!\!\bar{p}-m}\gamma_{\nu}\frac{i}{\not\!\!\bar{k}+\not\!\!q-m}

959: \label{5-1}

960: \eeq

961: 

962: Here $q$ is the momentum transfer along the photon line and $m$ the mass of electron.

963: Introducing the Feynman parameter $x$ as in previous section and performing a shift in momentum integration:

964: $\bar{p}\rightarrow K=\bar{p}+xq$, we get:

965: 

966: \beq \Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=-4e^2\int_0^1dx(I_1+I_2)

967: \label{5-2}

968: \eeq

969: 

970: where

971: 

972: \beq

973: I_1=\int\frac{d^4K}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{2K_{\mu}K_{\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}K^2}{(K^2-M^2)^2}

974: \label{5-3}

975: \eeq

976: 

977: with

978: 

979: \beq

980: M^2=m^2+q^2(x^2-x)

981: \label{5-4}

982: \eeq

983: 

984: is quadratically divergent while

985: 

986: \beq

987: I_2=\int\frac{d^4K}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{(x^2-x)(2q_{\mu}q_{\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}q^2)+m^2g_{\mu\nu}}{(K^2-M^2)^2}

988: \label{5-5}

989: \eeq

990: 

991: is only logarithmically divergent like that in Eq.(\ref{4-5}). An

992: elegant way to handle $I_1$, Eq.(\ref{5-3}), is modifying $M^2$ to

993: 

994: \beq

995: M^2(\sigma)=m^2+q^2(x^2-x)+\sigma

996: \label{5-6}

997: \eeq

998: 

999: and differentiating $I_1$ with respect to $\sigma$.

1000: After integration with respect to $K$, we reintegrate it with

1001: respect to $\sigma$ twice, arriving at the limit

1002: $\sigma\rightarrow 0$:

1003: 

1004: \beq

1005: I_1=\frac{ig_{\mu\nu}}{(4\pi)^2}\left\{[m^2+q^2(x^2-x)]\ln\frac{m^2+q^2(x^2-x)}{\mu_3^2}+C_2\right\}

1006: \label{5-7}

1007: \eeq

1008: 

1009: with two arbitrary constant: $C_1=-\ln\mu_3^2$ and $C_2$. Combining

1010: $I_1$ and $I_2$ together, we find:

1011: 

1012: \beq

1013: \Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=\frac{8ie^2}{(4\pi)^2}(q_{\mu}q_{\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}q^2)\int_0^1dx(x^2-x)

1014: \ln\frac{m^2+q^2(x^2-x)}{\mu_3^2}-\frac{4ie^2}{(4\pi)^2}g_{\mu\nu}C_2

1015: \label{5-8}

1016: \eeq

1017: 

1018: The continuity equation of current induced in the vacuum

1019: polarization \cite{21}

1020: 

1021: \beq

1022: q^{\mu}\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=0

1023: \label{5-9}

1024: \eeq

1025: 

1026: is ensured by the factor $(q_{\mu}q_{\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}q^2)$. So we

1027: set $C_2=0$. Consider the scattering between two electrons via the

1028: exchange of a photon with momentum transfer $q\rightarrow0$.

1029: Adding the contribution of $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)$ to the tree diagram

1030: amounts to modify the charge square:

1031: 

1032: \beq e^2\longrightarrow e^2_R=Z_3e^2,\ \ \

1033: Z_3=1+\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}(\ln\frac{m^2}{\mu_3^2}-\frac{q^2}{5m^2}+\cdots)

1034: \label{5-10}

1035: \eeq

1036: 

1037: As in Ref.\cite{8:b}, we will set $\mu_3=m$ so that at the Thomson

1038: limit:$\lim_{q\rightarrow0}e_R^2=e^2$. However, for the purpose of

1039: calculating Lamb shift (LS) below, the second term in the

1040: parenthesis of $Z_3$ is important because for a bound state it

1041: contributes a term of effective potential (adding to Coulomb

1042: potential), called the Uehling potential (\cite{23},p.253):

1043: 

1044: \beq

1045: -\frac{4\alpha^2}{15m^2}\delta(\mathbf r)

1046: \label{5-11}

1047: \eeq

1048: 

1049: \section{The Off-Mass-Shell Vertex Function}

1050: 

1051: Consider an electron (see Fig.2(d)) moving in a hydrogen atom,

1052: its momentum changes from $p$ to $p'$ via the scattering by the

1053: proton and an exchange of virtual photon with momentum $k$. The

1054: FDI at one-loop level reads

1055: 

1056: \beq

1057: \Lambda_{\mu}(p',p)=(-ie)^2\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{-i}{k^2}\gamma_{\nu}

1058: \frac{i}{\not\!\!p'-\not\!\!k'-\mu}\gamma_{\mu}\frac{i}{\not\!\!p-\not\!\!k-\mu}\gamma^{\nu}

1059: \label{6-1}

1060: \eeq

1061: 

1062: However, different from \cite{8:b} and many other literatures, not

1063: only the reduced mass $\mu$ (instead of $m$) of electron is used,

1064: but also a new approach will be adopted. We assume that the

1065: electron is moving off-mass-shell in the sense of (as in section

1066: IV):

1067: 

1068: \beq

1069: p^2=p'^2=\mu^2(1-\zeta)

1070: \label{6-2}

1071: \eeq

1072: 

1073: We still have

1074: 

1075: \beq

1076: p'-p=q,\ \ \ p\cdot q=-\frac{1}{2}q^2

1077: \label{6-3}

1078: \eeq

1079: 

1080: Introducing Feynman parameters $u=x+y$ and $v=x-y$, we perform

1081: a shift in the momentum integration:$k\rightarrow

1082: K=k-(p+q/2)u-(q/2)v$, thus

1083: 

1084: \beq \Lambda_{\mu}=-ie^2[I_3\gamma_{\mu}+I_4]

1085: \label{6-4}

1086: \eeq

1087: 

1088: \bea

1089: I_3&=&\int_0^1du\int_{-u}^udv\int\frac{d^4K}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{K^2}{(K^2-M^2)^3}\label{6-5}\\

1090: M^2&=&[\mu^2(1-\zeta)-\frac{q^2}{4}]u^2+\frac{q^2}{4}v^2+\zeta\mu^2u\label{6-6}\\

1091: I_4&=&\int_0^1du\int_{-u}^udv\int\frac{d^4K}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{A_{\mu}}{(K^2-M^2)^3}\label{6-7}\\

1092: A_{\mu}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!(4\!\!-\!\!4u\!\!-\!\!2u^2)\mu^2(1\!\!-\!\!\zeta)\gamma_{\mu}\!+\!2i(u^2\!\!-\!\!u)\mu

1093: q^{\nu}\!\sigma_{\mu\nu}

1094: \!-\!(2\!-\!2u\!+\!\frac{u^2}{2}\!-\!\frac{v^2}{2})q^2\gamma_{\mu}\!-\!(2\!+\!2u)v\mu

1095: q_{\mu} \label{6-8} \ena

1096: 

1097: Set $K^2=K^2-M^2+M^2$, then $I_3=I'_3-\frac{i}{32\pi^2}$ and

1098: $I'_3$ is only logarithmically divergent and so can be treated as

1099: in previous sections, yielding:

1100: 

1101: \beq

1102: I'_3=\frac{-i}{(4\pi)^2}\int_0^1du\int_{-u}^udv\ln\frac{M^2}{\mu_1^2}

1103: \label{6-9}

1104: \eeq

1105: 

1106: with $\mu_1$ an arbitrary constant.

1107: 

1108: However, unlike Ref.\cite{8:b} where the calculation was conducted on

1109: the mass-shell, now the off-mass-shell integration in Eq.(\ref{6-9}) can be

1110: performed in the approximation that $\frac{Q^2}{4\mu^2}\ll1$ and

1111: $\zeta\ll1$ ($Q^2=-q^2$, $Q$ is the three-dimensional momentum

1112: transfer) which will be enough to calculate the Lamb shift (LS).

1113: Denoting

1114: 

1115: \beq

1116: a=[\mu^2(1-\zeta)+\frac{Q^2}{4}]u^2+\zeta\mu^2u,\ \ \

1117: b=\frac{Q^2}{4}

1118: \label{6-10}

1119: \eeq

1120: 

1121: we will perform the integration with respect to $v$ and $u$

1122: rigorously:

1123: 

1124: \beq

1125: \int_{-u}^udv\ln(a-bv^2)=2u[\ln\mu^2+\ln

1126: u+\ln[(1-\zeta)u+\zeta]-4u+2\sqrt{\frac{4a}{Q^2}}\ln\frac{1+\sqrt{Q^2/4a}u}{1-\sqrt{Q^2/4a}u}

1127: \label{6-11}

1128: \eeq

1129: 

1130: Expanding the last term and keeping only up to the order of

1131: $\zeta$ and $Q^2/4\mu^2$, we obtain

1132: 

1133: \beq

1134: \int_0^1du\int_{-u}^udv\ln(a-bv^2)\simeq\ln\mu^2-1+\zeta+\frac{Q^2}{6\mu^2}(1-\zeta)

1135: \label{6-12}

1136: \eeq

1137: 

1138: To our great pleasure, throughout the evaluation of $I_4$, there

1139: is no any infrared divergence which would appear in previous

1140: literatures when integrating with respect to $u$ with lower limit

1141: zero. To avoid the infrared divergence, \eg, in \cite{8:b}, a cutoff

1142: was introduced at the lower limit. Now the infrared

1143: divergence disappears due to the existence of off-mass-shell

1144: parameter $\zeta$. For example, we encounter the following

1145: integral, in which no cutoff is needed

1146: ($\lambda=(1-\zeta)+Q^2/4\mu^2\sim1$):

1147: 

1148: \beq

1149: \int_0^1\frac{du}{u+\zeta/\lambda}=\frac{\zeta}{\lambda}-\ln\frac{\zeta}{\lambda}

1150: \label{6-13}

1151: \eeq

1152: 

1153: Hence, after elementary but tedious calculation, we find:

1154: 

1155: \beq\begin{array}{l}

1156: \Lambda_{\mu}(p',p)=\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}[\frac{11}{2}-\ln\frac{\mu^2}{\mu_1^2}-3\zeta+4(1+\zeta)\ln\zeta]\gamma_{\mu}

1157: +\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\gamma_{\mu}(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{2}\zeta+\frac{4}{3}\ln\zeta+2\zeta\ln\zeta)\\

1158: +i\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\frac{q^{\nu}}{\mu}\sigma_{\mu\nu}(1+3\zeta+2\zeta\ln\zeta)

1159: \label{6-14}

1160: \end{array}\eeq

1161: 

1162: \section{Calculation of Lamb Shift as an Off-Mass-Shell Effect at

1163: One-Loop Level}

1164: 

1165: There are three parts in Eq.(\ref{6-14}). The first part in

1166: combination with the vertex $\gamma_{\mu}$ at tree level provides

1167: a renormalization factor as

1168: 

1169: \beq

1170: Z_1^{-1}=1+\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}[\frac{11}{2}-\ln\frac{\mu^2}{\mu_1^2}-3\zeta+4(1+\zeta)\ln\zeta]

1171: \label{7-1}

1172: \eeq

1173: 

1174: Further combination with $Z_2$ in Eq.(\ref{4-10}) and $Z_3$ in

1175: Eq.(\ref{5-10}) leads to a renormalized charge (at one-loop level,

1176: see Fig.2):

1177: 

1178: \beq

1179: e_R=\frac{Z_2}{Z_1}Z_3^{1/2}e

1180: \label{7-2}

1181: \eeq

1182: 

1183: However the Ward identity implies that \cite{21,22,23} \

1184: 

1185: \beq

1186: Z_1=Z_2

1187: \label{7-3}

1188: \eeq

1189: 

1190: Therefore

1191: 

1192: \beq

1193: \alpha_R=\frac{e_R^2}{4\pi}=Z_3\alpha

1194: \label{7-4}

1195: \eeq

1196: 

1197: Note that Ward identity holds not only for an electron on the

1198: mass-shell, but also for off-mass-shell case. Hence for every

1199: bound state in hydrogenlike atom with a definite value of $\zeta$

1200: ($Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are functions of $\zeta$), the arbitrary constant

1201: $\mu_1$ in Eq.(\ref{7-1}) plays a flexible role to guarantee the

1202: validity of Eq.(\ref{7-3}) (other two constants $\mu_2$ and $\mu_3$

1203: had been fixed in Eq.(\ref{4-13}) and (\ref{5-10}) respectively). For further discussion, see section IX.

1204: 

1205: The second part of Eq.(\ref{6-14}) contains $Q^2\gamma_{\mu}$. Just

1206: like the Uehling potential in Eq.(\ref{5-10}) (with $q^2=-Q^2$), it

1207: contributes an effective potential of $\delta$ function type as

1208: 

1209: \beq

1210: \frac{\alpha^2}{\mu^2}[-\frac{1}{6}-\frac{1}{2}\zeta-\frac{4}{3}\ln\zeta-2\zeta\ln\zeta]\delta(\mathbf

1211: r)

1212: \label{7-5}

1213: \eeq

1214: 

1215: Finally, the third part of Eq.(\ref{6-14}) amounts to a modification

1216: of electron magnetic moment in the atom, the gyromagnetic ratio of

1217: electron reads:

1218: 

1219: \beq

1220: g=2[1+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}(1+3\zeta+2\zeta\ln\zeta)]

1221: \label{7-6}

1222: \eeq

1223: 

1224: We will call the anomalous part of magnetic

1225: moment $a=\frac{\tilde{\alpha}}{2\pi}$, $\tilde{\alpha}=\alpha(1+3\zeta+2\zeta\ln\zeta)$. The radiative correction

1226: on the magnetic moment of an electron has two consequences. One is

1227: a modification to the L-S coupling in a hydrogenlike atom (with

1228: charge number $Z$) \cite{21,22}:

1229: 

1230: \beq

1231: H_{LS}^{rad}=2(\frac{\tilde{\alpha}}{2\pi})\frac{\alpha

1232: Z}{4\mu^2r^3}{\mathbf \sigma\cdot L}

1233: \label{7-7}

1234: \eeq

1235: 

1236: Here the electron mass

1237: has been modified from $m$ (see, \eg, \cite{15}) to $\mu$ which

1238: can be derived from the reduced Dirac equation.

1239: 

1240: Another consequence of anomalous magnetic moment of electron

1241: exhibits itself as an additional potential of $\delta$ function

1242: type like Eq.(\ref{5-11})\cite{21,22}

1243: 

1244: \beq

1245: \frac{Z\alpha\tilde{\alpha}}{2\mu^2}\delta(\mathbf r)

1246: \label{7-8}

1247: \eeq

1248: 

1249: Note that Eqs.(\ref{7-7}) and (\ref{7-8}) are only effective to states

1250: with $L\not=0$ and $S$ state with $L=0$ respectively.

1251: 

1252: Adding the results of Eqs.(\ref{7-7}), (\ref{7-8}) and the sum of Eqs.(\ref{5-11}) and (\ref{7-5})

1253: multiplied by $Z$ together to get all radiative corrections (at one-loop level) on

1254: electron in the hydrogenlike atom, then we get the effective potential as

1255: 

1256: \beq

1257: \begin{array}{ll}

1258: V_{eff}^{rad}&=\frac{Z\alpha^2}{\mu^2}[-\frac{4}{3}\ln\zeta-\frac{1}{2}\zeta-2\zeta\ln\zeta

1259: -\frac{1}{6}-\frac{4}{15}\frac{\mu^2}{m^2}+\frac{1}{2}(1+3\zeta+2\zeta\ln\zeta)

1260: ]\delta(\mathbf r)\\

1261: &+\frac{Z\alpha^2}{4\pi\mu^2r^3}(1+3\zeta+2\zeta\ln\zeta)

1262: {\mathbf \sigma\cdot L}\\

1263: &\simeq\frac{Z\alpha^2}{\mu^2}[-\frac{4}{3}\ln\zeta+\frac{1}{15}+\zeta-\zeta\ln\zeta]\delta(\mathbf

1264: r)+\frac{Z\alpha^2}{4\pi\mu^2r^3}(1+3\zeta+2\zeta\ln\zeta){\mathbf \sigma\cdot L}

1265: \end{array}

1266: \label{7-9}

1267: \eeq

1268: 

1269: where we take $\mu^2/m^2\approx1$ in the Uehling potential

1270: to make the formula simpler for a semi-quantitative calculation.

1271: Eq.(\ref{7-9}) leads to the energy modification of a bound state

1272: (with quantum numbers $n,l,j$) in a hydrogenlike atom:

1273: 

1274: \beq

1275: \delta({\mathbf r})\longrightarrow

1276: |\psi_{ns}(0)|^2=\frac{Z^3\alpha^3}{\pi n^3}\mu^3,\ \ \ (l=0)

1277: \label{7-10}

1278: \eeq

1279: 

1280: \beq

1281: \Delta E^{rad}=\Delta E^{rad}(ns)+\Delta E^{rad}_{LS}

1282: \label{7-11}

1283: \eeq

1284: 

1285: \beq \Delta E^{rad}(ns)=\frac{Z^4\alpha^3}{\pi

1286: n^3}R_y[\frac{8}{3}\ln\frac{1}{\zeta}+\frac{2}{15}+2\zeta(1-\ln\zeta)]\delta_{l0}

1287: \label{7-12}

1288: \eeq

1289: 

1290: \beq

1291: \Delta E^{rad}_{LS}=\frac{Z^4\alpha^3}{\pi

1292: n^3}R_y\frac{1+\zeta(3+2\ln\zeta)}{l(2l+1)(l+1)}\left\{

1293: \begin{array}{ll}

1294: &l,\ \ \ \ \ \ (j=l+1/2)\\

1295: -&(l+1),\ \ \ (j=l-1/2)

1296: \end{array}

1297: \right.

1298: \label{7-13}

1299: \eeq

1300: 

1301: where

1302: 

1303: \beq

1304: R_y=\frac{1}{2}\alpha^2\mu=\frac{\mu}{m}R_\infty

1305: \label{7-14}

1306: \eeq

1307: 

1308: \section{Energy-Level Difference in Hydrogenlike Atom: Theory vs.

1309: Experiment}

1310: 

1311: We will study some energy-level differences near the ground state

1312: of hydrogenlike atoms, where precise experimental data are

1313: available. Theoretically, the energy level is fixed primarily by

1314: the formula derived from the reduced Dirac equation (RDE), \ie,

1315: Eq.(\ref{1-1}) with $m_e$ substituted by $\mu_A$ where the subscript $A$

1316: refers to atom $H$, $D$ or $He^+$, \etal.:

1317: 

1318: \bea

1319: E_A^{RDE}&=&\mu_A[f(n,j)-1]=\frac{m_e}{1+b_A}[f(n,j)-1]\nonumber\\

1320: &=&\frac{1}{1+b_A}(1.2355897\times10^{20})[-\frac{(Z\alpha)^2}{2n^2}-\frac{(Z\alpha)^4}{3n^3}(\frac{1}{j+1/2}-

1321: \frac{3}{4n})-\cdots]\ \ Hz

1322: \label{8-1}

1323: \ena

1324: 

1325: Further recoil corrections Eq.(\ref{1-6}) derived by previous

1326: authors will be divided into two terms:

1327: 

1328: \bea

1329: \Delta E_A^{recoil-1}(n,j)&=&-\frac{\mu^2_A}{2M_A}[f(n,j)-1]^2=-\frac{m_eb_A}{2(1+b_A)^3}[f(n,j)-1]^2

1330: \label{8-2}\\

1331: \Delta E_A^{recoil-2}(n,j,l)&=&\frac{(Z\alpha)^4\mu^3_A}{2n^3m_N^{(A)^2}}

1332: (\frac{1}{j+\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{1}{l+\frac{1}{2}})(1-\delta_{l0})

1333: \label{8-3}

1334: \ena

1335: 

1336: Next comes the radiative correction calculated by QED at one-loop

1337: level, Eq.(\ref{7-11}):

1338: 

1339: \beq \Delta

1340: E_A^{rad}(n,j,l)=\frac{1}{1+b_A}\frac{Z^4}{n^3}(\frac{\alpha^3}{\pi}R_{\infty})

1341: [(-\frac{8}{3}\ln\zeta+\frac{2}{15}+2\zeta(1-\ln\zeta))\delta_{l0}

1342: +\frac{1+\zeta(3+2\ln\zeta)}{2l+1}C_{jl}(1-\delta_{l0})]

1343: \label{8-4}

1344: \eeq

1345: 

1346: where

1347: 

1348: \beq

1349: C_{jl}=\left\{

1350: \begin{array}{ll}

1351: &\frac{1}{l+1},\ \ \ j=l+\frac{1}{2}\\

1352: &-\frac{1}{l},\ \ \  j=l-\frac{1}{2}

1353: \end{array}

1354: \right.

1355: \label{8-5}

1356: \eeq

1357: 

1358: Finally, the finite nucleus size (NS) with radius $r_N^{(A)}$

1359: brings a correction \cite{10}:

1360: 

1361: \beq

1362: \begin{array}{ll}

1363: \Delta E_A^{NS}(n,j)&=\frac{4}{3}(\frac{\mu_A}{m_e})^3\frac{Z^4}{n^3}(\frac{r_N^{(A)}}{a_{\infty}})^2R_{\infty}\delta_{l0}\\

1364: &=(\frac{1}{1+b_A})^3\frac{Z^4}{n^3}(4.386454987\times10^7)[\frac{r_N^{(A)}(fm)}{5.2917725}]^2\delta_{l0}\

1365: \ Hz

1366: \end{array}

1367: \label{8-6}

1368: \eeq

1369: 

1370: As explained in Eq.(\ref{4-16}) with Eq.(\ref{4-17}), the value of

1371: off-mass-shell parameter $\zeta$ in Eq.(\ref{8-4}) can be calculated

1372: from the electron self-energy at one-loop level:

1373: 

1374: \beq

1375: \frac{Z^2\alpha}{n^2}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{(\zeta^{<S>}-2\zeta^{<S>}\ln\zeta^{<S>})}{1+\alpha/3\pi}

1376: \label{8-7}

1377: \eeq

1378: 

1379: where the superscript $<S>$ refers to "self-energy". However, we

1380: may derive the value of $\zeta$ in an alternative way. Divide the

1381: square average of four-dimensional momentum $p$ into two parts:

1382: 

1383: \beq

1384: <p^2>=<E^2>-<{\mathbf p}^2>

1385: \label{8-8}

1386: \eeq

1387: 

1388: where

1389: 

1390: \beq

1391: <E^2>=E^2=(\mu-B)^2\simeq\mu^2-2\mu B,

1392: \label{8-9}

1393: \eeq

1394: 

1395: since the binding energy

1396: 

1397: \beq

1398: B=\frac{Z^2\alpha^2}{2n^2}\mu\ll\mu

1399: \label{8-10}

1400: \eeq

1401: 

1402: The square average of three-dimensional momentum $\mathbf p$,

1403: $<{\mathbf p}^2>$, can be evaluated by the Virial theorem (\eg,

1404: \cite{15}). In a Coulomb field, an electron has potential energy

1405: $V=-\frac{Ze^2}{4\pi r}$ and kinetic energy

1406: $T=\frac{1}{2\mu}{\mathbf p}^2$. Then

1407: 

1408: \bea

1409: <{\mathbf p}^2>&=&2\mu<T>=2\mu[-B-<V>]=2\mu B\nonumber\\

1410: <p^2>&=&\mu^2-4\mu B=\mu^2(1-\frac{4B}{\mu})

1411: \label{8-11}

1412: \ena

1413: 

1414: Comparing Eq.(\ref{8-11}) with $<p^2>=\mu^2(1-\zeta^{<V>})$, we find

1415: 

1416: \beq

1417: \zeta^{<V>}=\frac{4B}{\mu}=\frac{2Z^2\alpha^2}{n^2}

1418: \label{8-12}

1419: \eeq

1420: 

1421: where the superscript $<V>$ refers to "Virial theorem". Table 1

1422: gives the values of $\zeta^{<S>}$ and $\zeta^{<V>}$ with their

1423: logarithm values as well as two kinds of "average", $\zeta^{<S+V>}=\frac{1}{2}(\zeta^{<S>}+\zeta^{<V>})$

1424: and $\zeta^{<SV>}=\sqrt{\zeta^{<S>}\zeta^{<V>}}$, to be used in

1425: Eq.(\ref{8-4}).

1426: 

1427: \vskip 0.5cm

1428: \small

1429: \renewcommand\arraystretch{1.3}

1430: \begin{small}\hspace*{-16mm}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1431: \multicolumn{8}{c}{Table 1. Off-mass-shell parameter $\zeta$ and $\ln\zeta$}\\[5pt]

1432:   \hline

1433:   $\frac{Z^2}{n^2}$ & $\zeta^{<S>}\times 10^4$ &-$\ln\zeta^{<S>}$ & $\zeta^{<V>}\times 10^6$ & -$\ln\zeta^{<V>}$ &

1434:   $\zeta^{<S+V>}\times 10^5$ & -$\ln\zeta^{<S+V>}$ & $\zeta^{<SV>}\times 10^5$ & $-\ln\zeta^{<SV>}$ \\

1435:   \hline

1436:   $\frac{1}{16}$ & $1.546093458$ & $8.77461$ & $\frac{\alpha^2}{8}=6.6564192$

1437:    &11.91992886 & $8.0632$ & 9.425609 & 3.2080284 & 10.34727 \\

1438:    \hline

1439:   $\frac{1}{4}$ & $7.446539697$ & 7.20259 & $\frac{\alpha^2}{2}=26.6256771$

1440:   & 10.5336345 & $38.5639$ & 7.860609 & 14.0808 & 8.86816225 \\

1441:    \hline

1442:  1 & $37.73719345$ & 5.57969 & $2\alpha^2=106.502$ &9.147340142 &

1443:  $194.011$ & 6.2450103 & 63.39626 & 7.36351521 \\

1444:   \hline

1445: \end{tabular}\end{small}

1446: \vspace{0.5cm}

1447: \normalsize

1448: 

1449: Now we are in a position to discuss a number of cases:

1450: 

1451: (a) The so-called classic Lamb shift of hydrogen atom was measured

1452: experimentally as \cite{10}:

1453: 

1454: \beq

1455: L_H^{exp}(2S-2P)\equiv E_H(2S_{1/2})-E_H(2P_{1/2})=1057.845\

1456: \ MHz

1457: \label{8-13}

1458: \eeq

1459: 

1460: Theoretically, in this case ($b_H=5.446170255\times10^{-4},\ r_N^H=r_p=0.862 fm$),

1461: Eqs.(\ref{8-1}) and (\ref{8-2}) make no contributions while

1462: Eqs.(\ref{8-3}) and (\ref{8-6}) only contribute

1463: 

1464: \beq

1465: \Delta E_H^{recoil-2}(2S_{1/2}-2P_{1/2})=-E_H^{recoil-2}(2,1/2,1)=-2.16156\ \ kHz

1466: \label{8-14}

1467: \eeq

1468: 

1469: and

1470: 

1471: \beq

1472: \Delta E_H^{NS}(2S-2P)=0.14525347\ \ MHz

1473: \label{8-15}

1474: \eeq

1475: 

1476: respectively. The dominant contribution comes from Eq.(\ref{8-4}).

1477: If using $\zeta^{<S>}$, we obtain

1478: 

1479: \beq\begin{array}{l}

1480: \Delta

1481: E_H^{Rad<S>}(2S-2P)=\frac{1}{1+b_H}\frac{1}{8}(4.06931316\times10^8)

1482: [-\frac{8}{3}\ln\zeta^{<S>}+\frac{7}{15}+3\zeta^{<S>}-\frac{4}{3}\zeta^{<S>}\ln\zeta^{<S>}]\\

1483: =1000.6567\

1484: MHz \label{8-16} \end{array}\eeq

1485: 

1486: If we use another three values of $\ln\zeta$ in Table 1, we get

1487: 

1488: \bea \Delta E_H^{Rad<V>}(2S-2P)&=&1451.7912\ \ MHz \label{8-17}\\

1489: \Delta E_H^{Rad<S+V>}(2S-2P)&=&1089.6513\ \ MHz \label{8-18}\\

1490: \Delta E_H^{Rad<SV>}(2S-2P)&=&1226.0871\ \ MHz

1491:  \label{8-19}

1492: \ena

1493: 

1494: It seems that Eq.(\ref{8-16}) is smaller whereas Eq.(\ref{8-17}) too

1495: large. So as an empirical rule in our semiquantitative

1496: calculation, we may use Eq.(\ref{8-18}) to get

1497: 

1498: \beq L_H^{theor.}(2S-2P)= 1089.651+0.145-0.002=1089.794\ \ MHz

1499: \label{8-20} \eeq

1500: 

1501: which is larger than Eq.(\ref{8-13}) by $3\%$.

1502: 

1503: (b) The Lamb shift of $He^+$ atom has been measured as (quoted

1504: from \cite{27}):

1505: 

1506: \beq L_{He^+}^{exp}(2S-2P)= 14041.13(17)\ \ MHz \label{8-21} \eeq

1507: 

1508: Similar to the case of hydrogen atom but with $Z=2$ and

1509: $b_{He^+}=\frac{m_e}{m_{\alpha}}=0.0001371$, we find

1510: 

1511: \bea \Delta E_{He^+}^{Rad<S>}(2S-2P)&=&1.252680693\times10^{10}\ \ Hz\nonumber\\

1512: \Delta E_{He^+}^{Rad<V>}(2S-2P)&=&2.023083608\times10^{10}\ \ Hz\nonumber\\

1513: \Delta E_{He^+}^{Rad<S+V>}(2S-2P)&=&1.369980830\times10^{10}\ \ Hz\nonumber\\

1514: \Delta E_{He^+}^{Rad<SV>}(2S-2P)&=&1.636521214\times10^{10}\ \ Hz

1515:  \label{8-22}

1516: \ena

1517: 

1518: As in the case of $H$ atom, we take the $<S+V>$ scheme and add

1519: 

1520: \bea \Delta E_{He^+}^{recoil-2}(2S-2P)&=&-2.165\ \ kHz \label{8-23}\\

1521: \Delta E_{He^+}^{NS}(2S-2P)&=&4.514\ \ MHz \label{8-24} \ena

1522: 

1523: ($r_{\alpha}\simeq1.2fm$), to find the theoretical value:

1524: 

1525: \beq L_{He^+}^{theor.}(2S-2P)= 13704.220\ \ MHz \label{8-25} \eeq

1526: 

1527: which is smaller than Eq.(\ref{8-21}) by $2.41\%$.

1528: 

1529: (c) The following energy-level difference is related to the "hyper

1530: Lamb shift (HLS)" \cite{10}:

1531: 

1532: \beq \Delta_H^{exp}\equiv

1533: E_H(4S)-E_H(2S)-\frac{1}{4}[E_H(2S)-E_H(1S)]=4797.338(10)\ \ MHz

1534: \label{8-26} \eeq

1535: 

1536: Theoretically, now Eq.(\ref{8-1}) makes the main contribution:

1537: 

1538: \beq \Delta

1539: E_H^{RDE}[(4S)-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]=3923.95\ \ MHz

1540: \label{8-27} \eeq

1541: 

1542: (The notation in parenthesis is self-evident). Eq.(\ref{8-2}) and Eq.(\ref{8-4})

1543: contribute

1544: 

1545: \beq \Delta E_H^{recoil-1}[(4S)-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]=

1546: -4.186\ \ MHz \label{8-28} \eeq

1547: 

1548: and

1549: 

1550: \bea \Delta E_H^{Rad<S>}&=&451.229097\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1551: \Delta E_H^{Rad<S+V>}&=&529.288296\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1552: \Delta E_H^{Rad<SV>}&=&675.907131\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1553: \Delta E_H^{Rad<V>}&=&903.266275\ \ MHz

1554:  \label{8-29}

1555: \ena

1556: 

1557: respectively. Adding a small contribution from Eq.(\ref{8-6})

1558: 

1559: \beq \Delta E_H^{NS}[(4S)-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]=

1560: 0.1270967854\ \ MHz \label{8-30} \eeq

1561: 

1562: we get

1563: \bea

1564: \Delta_H^{Theor.<S>}&=&4371.120197\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1565: \Delta_H^{Theor.<S+V>}&=&4449.179396\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1566: \Delta_H^{Theor.<SV>}&=&4595.798231\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1567: \Delta_H^{Theore.<V>}&=&3923.95-4.186+903.266275+0.1271=4823.1574\ \ MHz \label{8-31}

1568: \ena

1569: 

1570: The $<V>$ scheme is only larger than Eq.(\ref{8-26}) by $0.54\%$.

1571: All other schemes would be too small. So we guess that

1572: for $S$ states $<V>$ scheme is better than $<S>$ scheme.

1573: 

1574: (d) The following energy-level difference was also measured as

1575: \cite{10}:

1576: 

1577: \beq {\Delta'}_H^{exp}\equiv

1578: E_H(4D_{5/2})-E_H(2S)-\frac{1}{4}[E_H(2S)-E_H(1S)]=6490.144(24)\ \

1579: MHz \label{8-32} \eeq

1580: 

1581: Theoretically, Eq.(\ref{8-1}) also makes the main contribution:

1582: 

1583: \beq \Delta

1584: E_H^{RDE}[(4D_{5/2})-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]=5747.92\ \

1585: MHz \label{8-33} \eeq

1586: 

1587: while

1588: 

1589: \beq \Delta

1590: E_H^{recoil-1}[(4D_{5/2})-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]=-4.18611\

1591: \ MHz \label{8-34} \eeq

1592: 

1593: \beq \Delta

1594: E_H^{recoil-2}[(4D_{5/2})]=\alpha^4m_e(5.446170255\times10^{-4})^2(\frac{1}{3}-\frac{2}{5})=-6.9283\

1595: \ kHz \label{8-35} \eeq

1596: 

1597: are all small, we will have

1598: 

1599: \bea {\Delta'}

1600: E_H^{rad<S>}[(4D_{5/2})-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]&=&

1601: 302.088631\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1602: {\Delta'}E_H^{rad<V>}[(4D_{5/2})-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]&=&

1603: 700.843464\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1604: {\Delta'}E_H^{rad<S+V>}[(4D_{5/2})-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]&=&

1605: 369.124660\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1606: {\Delta'}E_H^{rad<SV>}[(4D_{5/2})-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]&=&

1607: 500.131264\ \ MHz \label{8-36} \ena

1608: 

1609: Finally, the nucleus size effect gives

1610: 

1611: \beq

1612: {\Delta'}E_H^{NS}[(4D_{5/2})-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]=

1613: 11.62027752\times10^5(\frac{1}{4}-\frac{5}{4}\times\frac{1}{8})=0.10894\

1614: \ MHz \label{8-37} \eeq

1615: 

1616: In sum, we have

1617: 

1618: \bea

1619: {\Delta'}_H^{<S>}&=&{\Delta'}E_H^{RDE}+{\Delta'}E_H^{recoil-1}+{\Delta'}E_H^{recoil-2}+{\Delta'}

1620: E_H^{rad<S>}+{\Delta'} E_H^{rad<NS>}=6045.925\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1621: {\Delta'}_H^{<V>}&=&6444.679\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1622: {\Delta'}_H^{<S+V>}&=&6112.961\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1623: {\Delta'}_H^{<SV>}&=&6243.967\ \ MHz \label{8-38}

1624: \ena

1625: 

1626: which are smaller than the experimental value (\ref{8-32}) by

1627: $6.8\%,\  0.7\%,\  5.8\%$ and $3.8\%$ respectively.

1628: .

1629: 

1630: (e) Experimentally, the combination of Eq.(\ref{8-26}) with

1631: Eq.(\ref{8-32}) yields:

1632: 

1633: \beq {\Delta''}_H^{exp}\equiv E(4D_{5/2})-E(4S_{1/2})=1692.806\ \

1634: MHz \label{8-39} \eeq

1635: 

1636: Then, theoretically, we have

1637: 

1638: \bea

1639: {\Delta''}_H^{RDE}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&1.823886903\times10^9\ \ Hz \label{8-40}\\

1640: {\Delta''}_H^{recoil-1}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&1.1008\ \ Hz \label{8-41}\\

1641: {\Delta''}_H^{recoil-2}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&-6.9283\ \ kHz \label{8-42}\\

1642: {\Delta''}_H^{NS}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&-0.0181605862\ \ MHz \label{8-43}

1643: \ena

1644: 

1645: and

1646: 

1647: \bea

1648: {\Delta''}_H^{rad<S>}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&-149.1404661\ \ MHz \label{8-44}\\

1649: {\Delta''}_H^{rad<V>}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&-202.4228107\ \ MHz \label{8-45}\\

1650: {\Delta''}_H^{rad<S+V>}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&-160.1636366\ \ MHz \label{8-46}\\

1651: {\Delta''}_H^{rad<SV>}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&-175.7758676\ \ MHz \label{8-47}

1652: \ena

1653: 

1654: Altogether, we have

1655: 

1656: \bea

1657: {\Delta''}_H^{theore.<S>}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&1674.721349\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1658: {\Delta''}_H^{theore.<S+V>}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&1663.716339\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1659: {\Delta''}_H^{theore.<SV>}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&1648.104108\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1660: {\Delta''}_H^{theore.<V>}(4D_{5/2}-4S)&=&1621.439105\ \ MHz

1661: \label{8-48}

1662: \ena

1663: 

1664: which are smaller than Eq.(\ref{8-39}) by $1.1\%,\ 1.7\%,\ 2.6\%$ and $4.2\%$ respectively.

1665: 

1666: (f) It's time to go back to the precision data of $2S-1S$

1667: transition in hydrogen atom as discussed in section II. Rewrite

1668: Eq.(\ref{2-1}) as (see also \cite{43}):

1669: 

1670: \beq \Delta E_H^{exp}(2S-1S)=2.46606141318734\times10^{15}\ \ Hz

1671: \label{8-49} \eeq

1672: 

1673: Theoretically, we have [see Eq.(\ref{2-4})]:

1674: 

1675: \beq \Delta E_H^{RDE}(2S-1S)=2.466067984\times10^{15}\ \ Hz

1676: \label{8-50} \eeq

1677: 

1678: \beq \Delta E_H^{recoil-1}(2S-1S)=22.32598676\ \ MHz

1679: \label{8-51}

1680: \eeq

1681: 

1682: \bea \Delta E_H^{rad<S>}(2S-1S)&=&-5142.081146\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1683: \Delta E_H^{rad<S+V>}(2S-1S)&=&-5765.958928\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1684: \Delta E_H^{rad<SV>}(2S-1S)&=&-6835.535314\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1685: \Delta E_H^{rad<V>}(2S-1S)&=&-8541.095068\ \ MHz

1686:  \label{8-52}

1687: \ena

1688: 

1689: \beq

1690: \Delta E_H^{NS}(2S-1S)=11.62027752\times10^5(\frac{1}{8}-1)=-1.016774283\

1691: \ MHz

1692:  \label{8-53}

1693: \eeq

1694: 

1695: If taking the value of $\Delta E_H^{rad}(2S-1S)$, we get

1696: 

1697: \bea

1698: \Delta E_H^{theore.<S>}(2S-1S)&=& 2.466062836\times10^{15} \ \ Hz\nonumber\\

1699: \Delta E_H^{theore.<S+V>}(2S-1S)&=& 2.466062239\times10^{15} \ \ Hz\nonumber\\

1700: \Delta E_H^{theore.<SV>}(2S-1S)&=& 2.466061169\times10^{15} \ \ Hz\nonumber\\

1701: \Delta E_H^{theore.<V>}(2S-1S)&=& 2.466059464\times10^{15}\ \ Hz \label{8-54}

1702: \ena

1703: 

1704: They are larger than Eq.(\ref{8-49}) by $1450\ MHz,\ 826\ MHz$ and smaller than Eq.(\ref{8-49})

1705: by $244\ MHz,\ 1949\ MHz$ respectively. Or, their discrepancies are

1706: $+5.9\times10^{-7},\ +3.3\times10^{-7},\ -1.0\times10^{-7},\ -7.9\times10^{-7}$, respectively.

1707: This discrepancy is basically stemming from

1708: the uncertainty in the calculation of $\Delta E_H^{rad}(2S-1S)$.

1709: 

1710: (g) Let us turn to the isotope-shift of $2S-1S$ transition.

1711: Rewrite Eq.(\ref{2-2}) as

1712: 

1713: \beq \Delta E_{D-H}^{exp}(2S-1S)=6.70994337\times10^{11}\ \ Hz

1714: \label{8-55} \eeq

1715: 

1716: Theoretically, rewrite Eqs.(\ref{2-6}) and (\ref{2-7}) as

1717: 

1718: \beq \Delta E_{D-H}^{RDE}(2S-1S)=6.7101527879\times10^{11}\ \ Hz

1719: \label{8-56} \eeq

1720: 

1721: and

1722: 

1723: \beq \Delta E_{D-H}^{recoil-1}(2S-1S)=-11.176\ \ MHz \label{8-57}

1724: \eeq

1725: 

1726: \bea \Delta E_{D-H}^{rad<S>}(2S-1S)&=&-1.399158\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1727: \Delta E_{D-H}^{rad<V>}(2S-1S)&=&-2.324028\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1728: \Delta E_{D-H}^{rad<S+V>}(2S-1S)&=&-1.568915\ \ MHz\nonumber\\

1729: \Delta E_{D-H}^{rad<SV>}(2S-1S)&=&-1.859945\ \ MHz

1730:  \label{8-58}

1731: \ena

1732: 

1733: \beq \Delta E_{D-H}^{NS}(2S-1S)=-5.11384949\ \ MHz \label{8-59}

1734: \eeq

1735: 

1736: Altogether, we find [using $<V>$ scheme in Eq.(\ref{8-58})]:

1737: 

1738: \beq \Delta

1739: E_{D-H}^{theore.<V>}(2S-1S)=6.709966701\times10^{11}\ \ Hz

1740: \label{8-60} \eeq

1741: 

1742: which is larger than Eq.(\ref{8-55}) by $2.333\ MHz$ or only

1743: $3.5\times10^{-6}$. Evidently, even Eq.(\ref{8-56}) solely

1744: deviates from Eq.(\ref{8-55}) by $3\times10^{-5}$ only. And as

1745: expected, the different schemes for $\Delta E_{D-H}^{rad}(2S-1S)$

1746: have little influence on the theoretical value, because any one of

1747: Eq.(\ref{8-58}) is much smaller than the nucleus size effect

1748: Eq.(\ref{8-59}) ($r_N^D=r_d=2.115 fm$).

1749: 

1750: (h) Finally, the so-called absolute Lamb-shift of $1S$ state in

1751: hydrogen atom was determined by Weitz \etal \cite{10}

1752: from the measured value Eq.(\ref{8-26}) or (\ref{8-32}). In our

1753: notation, using Eq.(\ref{8-32}), we will write it as follows:

1754: 

1755: \beq

1756: \begin{array}{ll}

1757: L_H(1S)=&4\{{\Delta'}_H^{exp}-\Delta

1758: E_H^{RDE}[(4D_{5/2})-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]-\Delta

1759: E_H^{recoil-1}[(4D_{5/2})-\frac{5}{4}(2S)+\frac{1}{4}(1S)]\\

1760: &-\Delta

1761: E_H^{recoil-2}(4D_{5/2})+\frac{5}{4}L_H(2S)-L_H(4D_{5/2})\}

1762: \end{array}

1763: \label{8-61} \eeq

1764: 

1765: Here the Lamb shift of $2S$ state $L_H(2S)$ can be determined from

1766: the experimental value of Eq.(\ref{8-13}) with $L_H(2P_{1/2})$

1767: being calculated from Eq.(\ref{8-4}):

1768: 

1769: \beq L_H(2S)=L_H^{exp}(2S-2P)-\Delta

1770: E_H^{recoil-2}(2S-2P_{1/2})+L_H(2P_{1/2})=1040.901\ \ MHz

1771: \label{8-62} \eeq

1772: 

1773: And $L_H(4D_{5/2})$ can also be calculated from Eq.(\ref{8-4}), so

1774: 

1775: \beq L_H(1S)=8188.478\ \ MHz \label{8-63} \eeq

1776: 

1777: which is in agreement with $8172.874(60)\ MHz$ given by \cite{10}

1778: within an accuracy $\lesssim 0.2\%$. If we use Eq.(\ref{8-26}) to

1779: derive $L_H(1S)$, we would have to calculate $L_H(4S)$ which is

1780: much larger than $L_H(4D_{5/2})$ and its derivation from

1781: Eq.(\ref{8-4}) seems not reliable. Similarly, the theoretical

1782: value of $L_H(1S)$ turns out to be

1783: 

1784: \beq L_H^{theore.}(1S)=\Delta E_H^{rad}(1S)+\Delta E_H^{NS}(1S)

1785: \label{8-64} \eeq

1786: 

1787: with $\Delta E_H^{NS}(1S)=0.14525347\ MHz$. However, the value of $\Delta

1788: E_H^{rad}(1S)$ strongly depends on the scheme we used in

1789: Eq.(\ref{8-4}), which must

1790: be narrowed in a high-loop calculation.

1791: The theoretical prediction was given in \cite{27} as:

1792: \begin{equation}\label{8-65}

1793:     L_H^{theor.}(1S)=8172754(14)(32)\ kHz

1794: \end{equation}

1795: Further discussions can be found in Refs. \cite{5,44,45}.

1796: 

1797: \section{Summary and Discussion}

1798: 

1799: The remarkable progress of the experimental research on

1800: energy-level differences in hydrogenlike atoms has been making

1801: this field an ideal theoretical laboratory for physics:

1802: 

1803: (a) The inevitable and successful use of reduced Dirac equation

1804: (RDE) to hydrogenlike atoms, especially to the isotope-shift of

1805: $2S-1S$ transition as reflected by Eqs.(\ref{8-55}) through

1806: (\ref{8-60}), is by no means an accidental fortune. It implies

1807: that the argument in section III for introducing RDE, Eq.(\ref{3-21}),

1808: is correct to a high accuracy. In particular, the basic principle of

1809: invariance under space-time inversion Eq.(\ref{3-22}) (with original mass $m$) could remain

1810: valid even for a noninertial frame. This implication has a far-reaching consequence that a

1811: generalization at the above symmetry to a localized curved

1812: space-time may be served as a possible road to quantize the

1813: general theory of relativity \cite{16}.

1814: 

1815: However, there are two realizations of potential $V$ under the

1816: space-time inversion, Eq.(\ref{3-15})("scalar" type) and

1817: Eq.(\ref{3-22})("vector" type). While Eq.(\ref{3-22}) does

1818: dominant in an atom like $H$ with $m_p\gg m_e$, the remaining

1819: discrepancy of $2.333\ MHz$ between theory and experiment

1820: [Eq.(\ref{8-60}) versus Eq.(\ref{8-55})] strongly hints that an

1821: important and subtle effect had been ignored. (To consider the contribution of

1822: the deuteron polarizability merely accounts for about $20\ kHz$

1823: \cite{6}). We think what neglected must be a tiny excitation of antiparticle

1824: field in the nucleus due to its interaction with electron in the CMCS. So when we reduce the degrees of freedom

1825: of two-body system from two to

1826: one, the RDE should be modified

1827: to take account of the tiny mixture of "scalar" potentials (see the page note after Eq.(\ref{3-22})).

1828: We don't know how to improve $RDE$ yet.

1829: However, an experimental evidence for the above conjecture could be the

1830: following prediction: The discrepancy between present theory (with RDE) and

1831: experiment must be smaller for the isotope shift in $2S-1S$

1832: transition of atoms $^4He$ and $^3He$ than that of atoms $H$ and $D$.

1833: 

1834: Recently, by using Dirac's method, Marsch rigorously solved the

1835: hydrogen atom as a two-Dirac particle system bound by Coulomb

1836: force \cite{34}. His solutions are composed of positive and

1837: negative pairs, corresponding respectively to hydrogen and

1838: anti-hydrogen as expected. However, surprisingly, in the hydrogen

1839: spectrum, besides the normal type-1 solution with reduced mass $\mu$, there is another

1840: anomalous type$-2$ solution with energy levels:  ${E'}_n=

1841: Mc^2-2\mu c^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu c^2(\frac{\alpha}{n})^2+\cdots\

1842: (n=1,2,\ldots)$ and "strange enough, the type$-2$ ground state

1843: $(n=1)$ does not have lowest energy but the continuum

1844: $(n=\infty)$". In our opinion, based on what we learnt from the

1845: Dirac equation and RDE, these anomalous solutions imply a positron

1846: moving in the field of proton. So all discrete states with energy

1847: ${E'}_n$ are actually unbound, they should be and can be ruled out

1848: in physics either by the "square integrable condition" or the

1849: "orthogonality criterion" acting on their rigorous wave functions

1850: (for one-body Dirac equation, see \cite{35}, also p.$28-31$, $50$ of \cite{36}). On the other

1851: hand, all continuum states ($n=\infty$) with energies lower than

1852: $Mc^2-2\mu c^2$ correspond to scattering wave functions with

1853: negative phase shifts , showing the repulsive force between

1854: positron and proton. (see \cite{37}, section 1.5 in \cite{36} or

1855: section 9.5 of \cite{15}). Marsch's discovery precisely reflects

1856: two things: (a) the negative energy state of a particle just

1857: describes its antiparticle state. (b) The Coulomb potential allows

1858: a complete set of solutions comprising of two symmetric

1859: sectors,hydrogen and antihydrogen.In the hydrogen sector, the

1860: proton remains unchanged regardless of the changing process of

1861: electron into positron under the Coulomb interaction.

1862: 

1863: The above particle-antiparticle symmetry (including Eq.(\ref{3-22}) showing the unequal treatment between electron and

1864: nucleus), together with the parity symmetry, is hidden in the Dirac's

1865: four-component theory in covariant form so they were overlooked to some extent in the past. The advantage

1866: or flexibility of two-component noncovariant form of Dirac equation or RDE (as discussed in this

1867: paper) lies in the fact that the above two symmetries become accurate and so easily to be extended

1868: (or violated) in an explicit manner. For completeness, let us stress again that for antiparticle, one should

1869: use the momentum and energy operators being ${\mathbf p}_c=i\nabla$ and $E_c= -i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$

1870: versus ${\mathbf p}=-i\nabla$ and $E=i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ for particle as required by the

1871: space-time inversion symmetry. The historical mission of the conception to imagine the positron as a

1872: "hole" in the sea of negative energy electrons is already over. Since the CPT invariance had been further verified \cite{39},

1873: the relation between a particle $|a\rangle$ and its antiparticle $|\bar{a}\rangle$ is well-established as: \footnotemark[4]

1874: \footnotetext[4]{To our knowledge, the correct definition, Eq.(\ref{167}), was first given by T. D. Lee and C. S. Wu at

1875: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. {\bf 15}, 381(1965). See also G. J. Ni at J. Fudan Univ. (Natural Science) No.3-4, 125(1974).}

1876: 

1877: \begin{equation}\label{167}

1878: |\bar{a}\rangle=CPT|a\rangle

1879: \end{equation}

1880: with their wave-functions (in free motion) being respectively:

1881: \begin{equation}\label{awave}

1882: \langle{\bf x},t|a\rangle\sim \exp[\frac{i}{\hbar}({\bf p}\cdot{\bf x}-Et)]

1883: \end{equation}

1884: \begin{equation}\label{abar}

1885: \langle{\bf x},t|\bar{a}\rangle\sim \exp[-\frac{i}{\hbar}({\bf p}\cdot{\bf x}-Et)]

1886: \end{equation}

1887: Note that in Eqs.(\ref{awave}) and (\ref{abar}), they have the same momentum $\bf p$ and positive energy $E$.

1888: Either a newly defined space-time inversion (${\bf x}\to -{\bf x},\,t\to -t$)

1889: or a simple change of $i\to -i$ will transform Eq.(\ref{awave}) into Eq.(\ref{abar}) (or vice versa).

1890: 

1891: 

1892: (b) Throughout this paper, the electron bound in an atom

1893: is just treated like a stationary "ball" with nucleus at its center and

1894: having a (Bohr) radius ($\sim 1/\alpha m_e$). However, it is in an

1895: off-mass-shell state (In some sense, our atom model is just the opposite to J. J. Thomson's atom model

1896: 100 years ago). In fact, the electron's mass is reduced

1897: suddenly from $m_e$ to $\mu$ in the RMCS when it is captured by a

1898: nucleus at the far remote orbit with quantum number

1899: $n\longrightarrow\infty$ and further reduced to

1900: $\mu+\delta\mu\simeq\mu-\frac{Z^2\alpha^2}{2n^2}\mu$ until $n$

1901: decreasing to the lowest limit $n=1$. The Lamb shift should be

1902: viewed as a further modification on the mass of an off-mass-shell

1903: electron due to radiative correction.

1904: 

1905:  Notice that the parameter $Q^2$ in the vertex function,

1906:  Eq.(\ref{6-14}), means the square of (three-dimensional) momentum

1907:  transfer when a free electron is on its mass-shell and collides

1908:  with some other particle as discussed in Ref.\cite{8:b}. By contrast, now

1909:  $Q^2$ exhibits itself as an effective potential of

1910:  $\delta$-function type exerted by the nucleus to the bound (and

1911:  so off-mass-shell) electron as shown by Eq.(\ref{7-5}). To bind an electron to a nucleus is a

1912:  nonperturbative effect. Hence we can understand why the discrepancy between $\zeta^{<S>}$

1913:  (calculated by perturbative QED at one-loop order) and $\zeta^{<V>}$ (evaluated via nonperturbative

1914:  Virial theorem) is so large. Fortunately, they lead to discrepancies in the calculated values of Lamb shift being not so large as

1915:  shown in Section VIII. When $\zeta^{<V>}$ or $\zeta^{<S+V>}$ (or $\zeta^{<SV>}$) is substituted into the Eq.(\ref{8-4})

1916:  which is derived from perturbative ($L=1$) theory, we should always be aware of some theoretical inconsistency in such a

1917:  semi-empirical treatment. But as a whole, we believe that the concept of Lamb shift as an off-mass-shell effect in covariant QED

1918:  is basically correct.

1919: 

1920:  (c) For a free on-mass-shell electron, its charge square $e_R^2$

1921:  will increase with the increase of $Q^2$ as shown by

1922:  Eq.(\ref{5-10}) (with $\mu_3=m_e,\ q^2=-Q^2$) and was calculated

1923:  in detail in \cite{8:b}, coinciding with the experimental data.

1924:  Note that, however, the Ward identity $Z_1=Z_2$ had been

1925:  used. An interesting question arises for a bound electron: as its

1926:  $e_R^2$ is not a function of $Q^2$, will $e_R^2$ change with the

1927:  variation of the quantum number $n$? To answer this question, let us

1928:  put Ward identity aside for a while and write down the

1929:  renormalized $\alpha_R=\frac{e_R^2}{4\pi}$ as

1930: 

1931:  \beq

1932: \alpha_R=\frac{Z_2^2}{Z_1^2}Z_3\alpha\longrightarrow\frac{Z_2^2}{Z_1^2}\alpha

1933: \label{9-1} \eeq

1934: 

1935: Let us work in the CMCS, so $Z_2=\frac{1}{1-B}$ and $B$ is shown

1936: in Eq.(\ref{4-8}) but with $\mu$ replaced by $m_e=m$. Similarly,

1937: $Z_1$ is given by the first part of Eq.(\ref{6-14}) with

1938: $\mu\longrightarrow m$:

1939: 

1940: \beq Z_1\simeq

1941: 1+\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}[\frac{11}{2}-\ln\frac{m^2}{\mu_1^2}-3\xi+4(1+\xi)\ln\xi]

1942: \label{9-2} \eeq

1943: 

1944: where the off-mass-shell parameter $\xi$ in CMCS is defined by

1945: 

1946: \beq

1947: p^2=m^2(1-\xi)=m^2(1-\eta-\zeta')=m^2(1-\eta)-m^2\zeta'=\mu^2-m^2\zeta'=\mu^2(1-\zeta)

1948: \label{9-3} \eeq

1949: 

1950: with

1951: 

1952: \beq m^2(1-\eta)=\mu^2, \ \ \eta=1-\frac{\mu^2}{m^2},\ \

1953: \zeta'=\frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\zeta \label{9-4} \eeq

1954: 

1955: and $\zeta$ is exactly that in Eq.(\ref{7-1}). If we ignore the

1956: dependence of $(1-B)$ on $\zeta$, Eq.(\ref{9-1}) would give

1957: ($\zeta\ll1$):

1958: 

1959: \beq

1960: \alpha_R=\alpha[1+\frac{2\alpha}{\pi}\ln(1+\frac{\zeta}{\eta})]

1961: \label{9-5} \eeq

1962: 

1963: after renormalization by adjusting the arbitrary constant $\mu_1$

1964: so that

1965: 

1966: \beq \alpha_R|_{\zeta\rightarrow0}=\alpha \label{9-6} \eeq

1967: 

1968: which connects to the Thomson limit

1969: $\alpha_R|_{Q\rightarrow0}=\alpha$ for a free electron

1970: continuously but not smoothly. Then for two lowest bound

1971: states with $n=1$ and $n=2$, we would have (in $<V>$ scheme):

1972: 

1973: \beq \alpha_R|_{n=1}\simeq\alpha(1.000433832),\ \

1974: \alpha_R|_{n=2}\simeq\alpha(1.0001123)\label{9-7} \eeq

1975: 

1976: This would modify the Bohr energy level in hydrogenlike atom A to

1977: 

1978: \beq \tilde{E}_A^{Bohr}(n)=-\frac{Z^2\alpha_n^2}{2n^2}\mu_A

1979: \label{9-8} \eeq

1980: 

1981: and make an extra contribution to the isotope-shift as

1982: 

1983: \beq \Delta \tilde{E}_{D-H}^{Bohr}(2S-1S)\simeq726\ \ MHz

1984: \label{9-9} \eeq

1985: 

1986: which is definitely excluded by the experiment. Hence the above

1987: consideration from Eq.(\ref{9-1}) till Eq.(\ref{9-9}) is wrong. We

1988: learn concretely once again that the Ward identity $Z_1=Z_2$ is valid not

1989: only for an electron on its mass-shell, but also for

1990: off-mass-shell case. Thus we use the same value of $\alpha$

1991: throughout the whole calculation.

1992: 

1993: (d) In Ref.\cite{8:b}, using our RRM and new renormalization group equation (RGE) for QCD derived from it and keeping all masses of 6 quarks ($m_c=1.031\; GeV$, $m_b=4.326\; GeV$,

1994: $m_t=175\; GeV$, $m_s=200 \;MeV$, $m_u=8\; MeV$, $m_d=10\; MeV$), we calculated the strong coupling constant $\alpha_{s_i}(Q)$ for $i=u,d,s,c,b$ respectively.

1995: Their running curves (starting from the common renormalization point $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$) follow the trend of experimental data

1996: (as shown on p.158 of \cite{39}) quite well but separate at the low $Q$ region. Interesting enough, each of them rises to a maximum

1997: $\alpha_{s_i}^{max}$ and then suddenly drops to zero at $Q=0$ corresponding to a threshold energy scale $E_i^{th}$ which could

1998: be explained as the excitation energy scale for breaking the quark pair. For example, we find $E_b^{th}=1.13\; GeV$ which is

1999: just the hadronization energy scale of Upsilon $\Upsilon(b\bar{b})$ against its dissociation into two bosons. Experimentally,

2000: $M(\Upsilon(4s))-M(\Upsilon)=1.12\;GeV$ and $\Upsilon(4s)\to B^+B^-$ or $B^0\bar{B}^0$. similarly, $E_c^{th}= 0.398\;GeV$

2001: while $M(\psi(3770))-M(\psi(3097))=673 \;MeV$ and $\psi(3770)\to D^+D^-$ or $D^0\bar{D}^0$. it seems that

2002: $E_s^{th}\sim 90\,MeV$ and $E_{u,d}^{th}\sim 0.4\,MeV$ are not so reliable but still reasonable.

2003: 

2004: Actually, our calculation on QCD is backed by that on QED. In [8]b, using our RRM and improved RGE, keeping all contributions from 9

2005: charged leptons and quarks we were able to calculate the running fine-structure constant $\alpha_R(Q)$ from the renormalization point

2006: $\alpha_R(Q)|_{Q=0}=\alpha=(137.036)^{-1}$ until it coincides with the experimental value of $\alpha_{exp}(M_Z)=(128.89)^{-1}$.

2007: We fitted quark's masses as mentioned above and found no further room left for extra charged elementary particles (say, of 4th

2008: generation).

2009: 

2010: (e) In 1989, we had estimated the upper and lower bounds on Higgs mass $M_H$ by using a nonperturbative approach in QFT --- the Gaussian effective

2011: potential (GEP) method, yielding \cite{40}:

2012: \begin{equation}\label{}

2013: 76\; GeV <M_H<170\; GeV

2014: \end{equation}

2015: Like many other authors, we were bothered a lot by divergences. After a deeper study on the $\lambda\phi^4$ model by using our new RRM

2016: \cite{8:a}, we restudied this problem by combination GEP with RRM, yielding\cite{24}:

2017: \begin{equation}\label{higgs}

2018: M_H=138\; GeV

2019: \end{equation}

2020: This is not a upper or lower bound but a prediction based on the input of experimental data:

2021: \begin{equation}\label{}\begin{array}{l}

2022: M_W=80.359 \;GeV,\;M_Z=91.1884 \;GeV, \alpha^{-1}=\dfrac{4\pi}{g^2\sin^2\theta_W}=128.89,\;\\

2023: \sin^2\theta_W=\dfrac{{g'}^2}{g^2+{g'}^2}=0.2317

2024:  \end{array}\end{equation}

2025: where $\theta_W$ is the weak mixing (Weinberg) angle. Because of getting rid of all divergences, our calculation is well under

2026: control at every step. As now the search for Higgs particle becomes so urgent experimentally but the theoretical estimation about

2027: its mass still remains uncertain\cite{39}, we think our approach with the prediction (\ref{higgs}) deserves to be reconsidered.

2028: 

2029: (f) Moreover, our RRM can be used in $D+1$ space-time without

2030: limitation on the space dimension $D$. A detailed analysis of

2031: sinh(sine)-Gordon models with $D=1,2$ and $3$ (also using GEPM) is

2032: given by Ref.\cite{25}. Another example is again the Lamb shift but

2033: calculated by QED in noncovariant form and by using RRM similar to

2034: that in this paper, see Appendix (\cite{26}, see also the Appendix 9A in

2035: \cite{15}). The theoretical value (A.20) seems better than (\ref{8-20}), showing that for

2036: dealing with the Lamb shift, the noncovariant theory may be more suitable than the

2037: covariant one at least in the lowest order.

2038: 

2039: (g) Previously, the theories for Lamb shift or generally for

2040: calculating energy levels in hydrogenlike atoms are rather complicated

2041: as reviewed in refs \cite{1,2} and \cite{27}, some of them have been discussed

2042: in the Appendix of this paper. For further clarity, let us try to

2043: summarize the main obstacles, or challenges in four points:\\

2044: (1) Different masses of nuclei must be taken into account;\\

2045: (2) Relativistic effects of the electron (not nucleus) are important;\\

2046: (3) In calculating radiative corrections, the divergence becomes

2047: severer and severer with the increase of loop number;\\

2048: (4) Since nuclei's properties are different from one atom to another,

2049: to treat each atom as a two-body system individually would be a

2050: daunting task, it couldn't be rigorous eventually too. This can be

2051: clearly seen from the recent work by Marsch \cite{34}.

2052: 

2053:    Facing these challenges and learning from lessons and experiences

2054: of previous authors, we see that the clue point is to replace the

2055: electron mass $m$ by reduced mass $\mu$ and work in the noninertial frame

2056: (RMCS) throughout the entire calculation. As is well known, this can

2057: be handled in nonrelativistic QM by a

2058: mathematical trick but is impossible in relativistic case. So what we

2059: need is a new understanding on the essence of special relativity

2060: --- the invariance (of theory) under the (newly defined) space-time

2061: inversion in one inertial frame. Then we are able to claim the same

2062: invariance in the RMCS with $\mu$ replacing $m$

2063: for establishing the RDE, ignoring a small centripetal acceleration of the nucleus in $CMCS$ (see page note after Eq.(\ref{3-22})).

2064: The approximation in $RDE$ is some price paid for the much

2065: bigger gain---improving the original Dirac equation (unable to treat

2066: different nuclei) and avoiding the confusion in QED calculation

2067: because of the entanglement of two frames: CMCS with RMCS (

2068: {\it i.e.}, the radiative corrections are entangled with the recoil effect

2069: as we can see from previous literatures). In some senses, we jump over

2070: obstacles (1) ,(2) and (4)at the least labor cost (by constructing

2071: RDE). In the meantime, we hope RDE would help to ease the

2072: difficulty in point (3).

2073: And it's a great pleasure to see that the essential correctness of our

2074: understanding has been validated by Marsch's work as well as

2075: puzzles raised in his paper \cite{34}. Please see also Ref \cite{41}.

2076: 

2077:    As to challenge (3), only after we puzzled over the "divergence"

2078: for decades, could we suddenly realize that we misread its implication

2079: as a "large number".

2080: Rather, it means the "uncertainty". Let us look at the calculation in

2081: section IV again. Previously, many authors treated the divergent

2082: integral I in Eq.(\ref{4-5}) by different tricks of regularization ,

2083: arriving at Eq.(\ref{4-11}). Because both A and B are divergent, it was

2084: thought that the original mass ($\mu$ here) does receive some radiative

2085: corrections (via the self-energy diagrams in Fig 2(a) and (b)) and

2086: becomes a "renormalized" mass ($\mu_R$ here). The latter should be the

2087: observed mass in experiment or physical mass (of electron). So the

2088: original mass was called as the "bare mass", which was written into

2089: the Lagrangian density as an input parameter of QFT. Then in

2090: constructing Feynman diagrams of certain perturbative calculation, one

2091: needs to further introduce some (divergent) "counter terms" for

2092: cancelling the divergence stemming from the bare mass. Based on that understanding, the renormalization

2093: factor for wavefunction, $Z_2$ in Eq.(\ref{4-10}), would be a divergent quantity

2094: too (in sharp contrast to here Eq.(\ref{4-14}) being a fixed

2095: and finite number). Previously, In Eq.(\ref{5-10}), while the $e_R$ on the left

2096: handed side is the observed charge which should be finite, the $e$ on

2097: the right handed side was regarded as a "bare charge" which, together

2098: with the $Z_3$, was a divergent quantity. (see Fig.~7.8 in \cite{23}. By contrast, here both $Z_3$ and

2099: $e$ are finite. Actually, here $e$ is defined as the physical charge

2100: observed at the Thomson limit in experiment).

2101: 

2102:   In our opinion, the reason why we encountered so many  superfluous troubles

2103: in the past is because we overlooked what Bethe said in 1947\cite{29}.

2104: Please read his words quoted after Eq. (A.2) in the Appendix. Let us

2105: explain via our Eq.(\ref{4-1}).

2106: The (reduced) mass ($\mu$) already contains some contributions from

2107: self-energy diagrams like Fig. 2(a) and (b). When we evaluate the

2108: (divergent) integral, Eq.(\ref{4-5}), trying to find the radiative

2109: corrections on the electron, the latter is bound to confuse with that

2110: already contained in the mass. In other words, the dividing line

2111: between them is blurred inevitably. The emergence of explicit

2112: divergence is essentially a warning that the effect you want to

2113: evaluate has been entangled with the mass itself, rendering both of

2114: them uncertain. Hence the aim of so-called renormalization is nothing

2115: but to redraw the dividing line between them such that the values of

2116: mass (reconfirmed by the experiment) and the new effect ({\it e.g.}, the

2117: mass increment when the electron is moving off-mass-shell, Eq.(\ref{4-16}))

2118: can be clearly separated.

2119:   In short, what we have been learning in the past decade is:

2120: At the level of QM, in the Hamiltonian like Eq. (A.1), the parameters

2121: $m$ and $e$ can be regarded as well-defined. But they are not so at the

2122: level of QFT. Once the calculation is made beyond the tree level,

2123: {\it i.e.}, with loop number $L\geq1$, the divergence occurs and the meaning of

2124: parameters becomes obscure immediately.

2125: 

2126: We need to reconfirm all parameters contained in the Lagrangian

2127: density before they can be linked with experiments. In this sense, a

2128: model of QFT is at most an "effective field theory". According to the

2129: above point of view, we believe that our RRM just provides a natural

2130: way to carry out these processes of reconfirmation \cite{8:a}, getting rid

2131: of divergences and ambiguities. Please see also Ref \cite{42}.

2132: 

2133: (h) Last, but not least, during the learning and teaching of graduate courses

2134: on QFT for decades, we have been sharing the joy and puzzle with

2135: our students all the time. We hope that the presentation of this

2136: paper could be useful as a teaching reference to render the QFT

2137: course more understandable, interesting and attractive.

2138: 

2139: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2140: 

2141: We thank S.Q. Chen, S.S. Feng, R.T. Fu,

2142: P.T. Leung, W.F. Lu, X.T. Song, F. Wang, H.B. Wang, J. Yan, G.H. Yang and

2143: J.F. Yang for close collaboration and helpful discussions.

2144: We are also indebted to referees whose comments provided us opportunities to

2145: improve our manuscript.

2146: 

2147: 

2148: \section*{Appendix: Comparison Between Noncovariant and Covariant Theories for Lamb Shift}

2149: 1. To our knowledge, the precision theory for Lamb shift was based on a combination of noncovariant

2150: (nonrelativistic or old-fashioned) QED with covariant (or relativistic) QED as discussed in Ref.\cite{27}.

2151: As explained clearly by Sakurai in Ref.\cite{21}, in perturbative QFT of noncovariant form, all virtual

2152: particles are "on-mass-shell". Here we wish to emphasize that a rigorous reconfirmation procedure of mass

2153: parameter was often overlooked in previous literatures.

2154: The theory for hydrogenlike atom begins with a Hamiltonian:

2155: \begin{equation*}\label{A1}

2156:     H_0=\frac{1}{2m}{\mathbf p}^2+\frac{1}{2m_N}{\mathbf p}^2-\frac{Z\alpha}{r}\eqno{(A.1)}

2157: \end{equation*}

2158: (${\mathbf p}=-i\nabla$, see Eq.(34) in \cite{27}). As Bethe \cite{29} first pointed out that the effect of

2159: electron's interaction with the vector potential $\mathbf A$ of radiation field (see \cite{21},\cite{15})

2160: \begin{equation*}\label{A2}

2161:     H_{int}^{(1)}=\frac{e}{mc}{\mathbf A}\cdot{\mathbf p}\eqno{(A.2)}

2162: \end{equation*}

2163: should properly be regarded as already included in the observed mass $m_{obs}$ of the electron, which is denoted

2164: by $m$ in (A1). However, once a concrete calculation is made with (A2) being taken into account, the

2165: divergence emerges immediately. What does it mean?

2166: Mathematicians teach us that there are three implications for a divergence:\\

2167: (a)It is a dimensionless number; (b)It is a large number; (c)It is uncertain. While we physicists often emphasized

2168: the point (b), we didn't pay enough attention to the points (a) and (c). We often talked about a quadratically

2169: (or linearly) divergent integral without noticing that it has a dimension (say, mass dimension) and thus

2170: meaningless in mathematics unless a mass parameter (say, $m$) in the integral is already fixed as a mass "unit"

2171: so that the integral can be divided by $m^2$ (or $m$) to become dimensionless.

2172: Alternatively, a logarithmically divergent integral is dimensionless and thus unaffected by the choice of unit

2173: [like Eq.(\ref{4-5}), see also Eq.(A6) below], it just implies an uncertainty waiting to be fixed.

2174: The implication of uncertainty of a divergence will never vanish even after we introduced a cutoff by hand to

2175: curb it. For example, in a pioneering paper to explain the Lamb shift, Welton (\cite{30}, see section 9.6B in

2176: Ref.\cite{15}) encountered an integral $I=\int_{\omega_{min}}^{\omega_{max}}\frac{d\omega}{\omega}$ with $\omega$

2177: being the (angular) frequency of virtual photon (vacuum fluctuation). He simply set

2178: $\omega_{min}\sim mZ\alpha =Z/a$, ($a$ is Bohr radius) and $\omega_{max}\sim m$ so that

2179: $I\simeq \ln(1/Z\alpha)=4.92$ (for $Z=1$) which leads to an estimation of Lamb shift

2180: $L_H^{theor.}(2S_{1/2}-2P_{1/2})\simeq 668\ MHz$. If instead of Bohr radius, the lower cutoff is provided by the

2181: electron binding energy, one should get $I\simeq \ln(Z\alpha)^{-2}$ and $L_H^{theor.}\simeq 1336\ MHz$.

2182: (see Eq.(30) in \cite{27}).

2183: The above arbitrariness just reflects what essential in a divergent integral is not its large magnitude

2184: ($\ln(Z\alpha)^{-1}$ is merely of the order of 10) but its uncertainty. So what important in handling the integral

2185: is not to curb (or to hide) its divergence but let the divergence exhibits itself as some arbitrary constants

2186: explicitly (as shown in section IV-VI). We will show later how to do this way for noncovariant QED.

2187: \\

2188: 2. While Eqs.(A1) and (A2) only describe a spinless particle, the electron has spin which endows it

2189: with the relativistic nature as shown by Eqs.(\ref{3-21})-(\ref{3-25}). For two-particle system,

2190: based on Bethe-Salpeter

2191: equation, an effective Dirac equation (EDE) was derived as shown by Eq.(23) in \cite{27}. When the electromagnetic

2192: field interaction is taken into account, the Breit potential $V_{Br}$ was derived as shown by Eq.{(35)}

2193: in \cite{27}.

2194: Then the total Breit Hamiltonian reads (Eq.(36) in \cite{27}):

2195: \begin{equation*}\label{A3}

2196:     H_{Br}=H_0+V_{Br}\eqno{(A.3)}

2197: \end{equation*}

2198: However, the electron mass $m'$ (in our notation here) appeared in EDE or $V_{Br}$ should be that in the Dirac

2199: equation, also that in the definition of reduced mass $\mu=\frac{m'm_N}{m'+m_N}$, eventually $m'$ could be

2200: identified with the observed mass $m_{obs}$, which is not equal to the $m$ in Eq.(A1). This is because besides

2201: (A2) there is an extra interaction due to electron spin with the radiation field:

2202: \begin{equation*}\label{A4}

2203:     H_{int}^{(2)}=\frac{ge\hbar}{4\mu c}{\mathbf \sigma}\cdot\nabla\times {\mathbf A}\eqno{(A.4)}

2204: \end{equation*}

2205: ($g=2\times 1.0011596522$ is the gyromagnetic ratio of electron, see Eq.(9A.15) in \cite{15}). The

2206: difference between

2207:  $m$ and $m'$ will be calculated in (A16) below. It turns out to be

2208: of the order of $\alpha m$ and cannot be ignored at the level of QED, especially for the explanation of

2209: Lamb shift.

2210: We guess this must be one of the reasons why all calculations based on Eq.(A3) became so complicated.

2211: \\

2212: 3. In noncovariant theory, the leading contribution to the Lamb shift comes from the one-photon electron

2213: self-energy.

2214: The nomenclature here is different from that in the covariant theory. Roughly speaking, so-called electron

2215: self-energy often corresponds to the vertex function in covariant theory (Fig.2(d) in this paper)

2216: or to Figs.8 and 11

2217: in Ref.\cite{27} and its evaluations have extended over 50 years \cite{31}. More precisely, it is identified with

2218: the radiative insertions in the electron line and the Dirac form factor contribution. Further contributions from

2219: the Pauli form factor and the vacuum polarization \cite{27} will add to a theoretical value of classic Lamb shift

2220: being $1050.559\ MHz$.

2221: If taking more high-order corrections into account, the theoretical value coincides with the experimental value

2222: $1057.845\ MHz$ rather accurately (see Table 20 in \cite{27}).

2223: However, the above calculation looks quite complicated due to two reasons: (a) The difficulty of dealing with

2224: two masses in two coordinate systems, the electron mass $m$ and the reduced mass $\mu$; (b) The introduction of

2225: an auxiliary parameter $\sigma\ [m(Z\alpha)\gg \sigma\gg m(Z\alpha)^2]$ to separate the radiative photon

2226: integration

2227: region into two parts. In the low momentum region, the Bethe Logarithm \cite{32} in noncovariant form makes the

2228: main contribution. In the high momentum region, the evaluation is resorting to some relativistic covariant form

2229: \cite{22}. Then two expressions are matched together to get the correct result.

2230: It seems to us that the matching trick used is doubtful because both ultraviolet and infrared divergences were

2231: ambiguously handled by some cutoff which missed the main point of renormalization---to reconfirm the mass parameter

2232: in the presence of radiative corrections as shown in section IV (covariant form) or below.

2233: \\

2234: 4. A simple calculation for Lamb shift in noncovariant form was proposed in Ref.\cite{26} (see also Appendix

2235:  9A of Ref.\cite{15}). Consider the self-energy diagram of an electron with reduced mass $\mu$ and

2236:  (three-dimensional)

2237:  momentum $\mathbf p$ in the RMCS of a hydrogenlike atom. Similar to Fig.2(a), but also different in the virtual

2238:  state, now a photon has energy $\omega_k=k=|{\mathbf k}|$ while the electron has momentum

2239:  ${\mathbf q}={\mathbf p}-{\mathbf k}$ and energy $\varepsilon_q=\frac{1}{2\mu}q^2$.

2240:  The electron in plane-wave state $|{\mathbf p}>$ has two interactions with the radiative field at each vertex as

2241:  shown by (A2) ($m\rightarrow \mu$) and (A4), acquiring an increase in energy respectively (see FIG. 3):

2242: \begin{equation*}\label{A5}

2243:     \Delta E_p^{(j)}=\sum_i\frac{|<i|H_{int}^{(j)}|{\mathbf p}>|^2}{\varepsilon_p-\varepsilon_i},

2244: \quad (j=1,2)\eqno{(A.5)}

2245: \end{equation*}

2246: Here $\varepsilon_i=\varepsilon_q+\omega_k$ is the energy of the intermediate virtual state $|i>$.

2247: Simple evaluation leads to

2248: \begin{equation*}\label{A6}

2249:     \Delta E_p^{(1)}=-\frac{\alpha p}{\pi\mu}\int_{-1}^1d\eta(1-\eta^2)I,

2250: \quad I=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{dk}{k+\xi}\eqno{(A.6)}

2251: \end{equation*}

2252: where $\eta=\cos\theta$ with $\theta$ being the angle between $\mathbf k$ and $\mathbf p$, $\xi=2(\mu-p\eta)$.

2253: Like Eq.(\ref{4-5}), we take partial derivative of the divergent integral $I$ with respect to $\xi$ (then the

2254: integration of $k$) and integrate back to $I$ again, yielding:

2255: $$

2256:   \Delta E_p^{(1)} = b_1^{(1)}p^2+b_2^{(1)}p^4+\cdots \eqno{(A.7)}

2257: $$

2258: 

2259:   $$b_1^{(1)} = \frac{\alpha}{\pi\mu}(\frac{4}{3}\ln2+\frac{4}{3}\ln\mu-\frac{4}{3}C_1) \eqno{(A.8)}$$

2260: 

2261:   $$b_2^{(1)} = \frac{\alpha}{\pi\mu^3}(-\frac{2}{15})\eqno{(A.9)}$$

2262: Note that the term $b_1^{(1)}p^2$ will combine with the kinetic energy $\frac{1}{2\mu}p^2$ of a ("spinless")

2263: electron, they are indistinguishable. The appearance of an arbitrary constant $C_1$ precisely reflects the fact

2264: that we cannot find the reduced mass via the valuation of $\Delta E_p^{(1)}$ in perturbation theory. So we must

2265: choose $b_1^{(1)}=0$ to reconfirm the value of $\mu$ (which is still not the final observed mass, see below).

2266: Similar evaluation on $H_{int}^{(2)}$ (of the real electron with spin $1/2$) which would induce the spin flip

2267: process between states $|{\mathbf p},\pm\frac{1}{2}>$ and $|{\mathbf q},\pm\frac{1}{2}>$, leads to

2268: $$

2269:   \Delta E_p^{(2)} =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,s_z=\pm1/2}\frac{|<i|H_{int}^{(2)}|{\mathbf p},s_z>|^2}

2270:   {\varepsilon_p-\varepsilon_i}=-\frac{\alpha g^2}{8\pi\mu}\int_{-1}^1d\eta J

2271: $$

2272: 

2273: $$  J =\int_0^{\infty}\frac{k^2dk}{k+\xi}\eqno{(A.10)}$$

2274: Being a quadratically divergent integral, $J$ needs partial derivative of third order with respect to $\xi$,

2275: yielding:

2276: $$

2277:  \Delta E_p^{(2)} =b_0^{(2)}+b_1^{(2)}p^2+b_2^{(2)}p^4+\cdots \eqno{(A.11)} $$

2278: 

2279:  $$

2280:  b_0^{(2)} = \frac{g^2}{4}\frac{\alpha\mu}{\pi}[4(\ln2+\ln\mu)-4C_2-\frac{2C_3}{\mu}-\frac{C_4}{\mu^2}]\eqno{(A.12)}

2281:  $$

2282: 

2283:  $$

2284:   b_1^{(2)} =\frac{g^2}{4}\frac{\alpha}{\pi\mu}(\frac{4}{3}\ln2+2+\frac{4}{3}\ln\mu-\frac{4}{3}C_2) \eqno{(A.13)}

2285:   $$

2286: 

2287:  $$ b_2^{(2)} = \frac{g^2}{4}\frac{\alpha}{\pi\mu^3}(-\frac{1}{15})\eqno{(A.14)}$$

2288: Let's manage to fix three arbitrary constants $C_2,C_3$ and $C_4$. First, the term $b_1^{(2)}p^2$ should be

2289: combined

2290: with $\frac{1}{2\mu}p^2$ term. Since $\mu$ is already fixed, further modification on $\mu$ due to electron spin

2291: should be finite and fixed. So the only possible choice of $C_2$ is to cancel $\ln\mu$ which is ambiguous in

2292: dimension: $C_2=\ln\mu$, yielding

2293: \begin{equation*}\label{A15}

2294:     b_1^{(2)}=\frac{\beta}{2\mu},\quad \beta=\frac{g^2\alpha}{2\pi}(\frac{4}{3}\ln2+2)\eqno{(A.15)}

2295: \end{equation*}

2296: Then the dimensional constants $C_3$ and $C_4$ must be chosen such that $b_0^{(2)}=0$, implying that the starting

2297: point of this theory is the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian $H_0$ in Eq.(A1) without rest energy term while both

2298: masses of the nucleus and the electron (with spin) are fixed by experiments.

2299: Hence now $\mu$ acquires a modification via $b_1^{(2)}p^2$ term and becomes an observable one:

2300: \begin{equation*}\label{A16}

2301:    \mu\longrightarrow \mu_{obs}=\frac{\mu}{1+\beta}\eqno{(A.16)}

2302: \end{equation*}

2303: However, we have to consider the relativistic energy of electron shown in Eq.(\ref{3-10}), where the term

2304: $(-\frac{1}{8\mu^3}p^4)$ goes beyond Eq.(A1). Yet the modification of $\mu$ shown as (A16) does induce

2305: a corresponding change $-\frac{1}{8}(\frac{1}{\mu_{obs}^3}-\frac{1}{\mu^3})p^4$, which should be regarded as

2306: an invisible "background" and subtracted from the $p^4$ term induced by radiative corrections. (The relativistic

2307: correction is brought in via the RDE as discussed in section VIII). As a whole, the combination of contributions

2308: from $H_{int}^{(1)}$ and $H_{int}^{(2)}$ leads to

2309: \begin{equation*}\label{A17}

2310:    b_1= b_1^{(1)}+ b_1^{(2)}= b_1^{(2)}\eqno{(A.17)}

2311: \end{equation*}

2312: and a "renormalized" $b_2$:

2313: \begin{equation*}\label{A18}

2314:    b_2^R=b_2^{(1)}+b_2^{(2)}+\frac{1}{8\mu^3}(3\beta+3\beta^2+\beta^3)

2315:    \simeq\frac{\alpha}{\pi\mu_{obs}^3}(1.99808)\eqno{(A.18)}

2316: \end{equation*}

2317: Here we only keep the lowest approximation at the last step.

2318: Hence the electron self-energy-diagram contributes a radiative correction to the energy level of the

2319: stationary state $|Z,n,l>$ in a hydrogenlike atom:

2320: \begin{equation*}\label{A19}

2321:    \Delta E^{rad}(Z,n,l)=\langle Z,n,l|b_2^Rp^4|Z,n,l\rangle=[\frac{8n}{2l+1}-3]\frac{b_2^RZ^4\alpha^4}{n^4}\mu^4_{obs}\eqno{(A.19)}

2322: \end{equation*}

2323: This form, together with contributions from the vacuum polarization and nuclear size effect, gives a theoretical

2324: value for classic Lamb shift:

2325: \begin{equation*}\label{A20}

2326:    L_H^{theor.}(2S_{1/2}-2P_{1/2})\approx 1056.52\ MHz\eqno{(A.20)}

2327: \end{equation*}

2328: which is smaller than the experimental value by $0.13\%$.

2329: Despite its approximation involved, the above method clearly shows that so-called renormalization is nothing but a

2330: reconfirmation process of mass. We must reconfirm the mass before it could be modified via radiative corrections.

2331: Either "skipping over the first step" or "combining two steps into one" is not allowed.

2332: \\

2333: 5. In noncovariant theory, the (three-dimensional) momentum $\mathbf p$ is combined with the reduced mass $\mu$

2334: to form a kinetic energy term $\frac{1}{2\mu}{\mathbf p}^2$ on the mass shell. Once the energy is modified

2335: whereas $\mathbf p$ is conserved at the vertex, $\mu$ is bound to be modified. On the other hand, in covariant

2336: theory, the electron energy turns to a component of four-dimensional momentum $p$ and the latter is conserved

2337: at the vertex. So the (reduced) mass  $\mu$  cannot be modified on the mass shell $(p^2=\mu^2)$. Therefore,

2338: the renormalization as some reconfirmation has different meaning in covariant theory versus that in

2339: noncovariant theory. We guess this is why the matching procedure of these two formalisms into one theory

2340: for Lamb shift proves so difficult.

2341: \\

2342: 6. Every theory in physics is not only a discovery of natural law, but also an invention of human being \cite{33}.

2343: Hence the comparison among various theories, in many cases, is not about a problem of being right or wrong.

2344: Rather, it's about a choice of simplicity, harmony (self-consistency) and beauty. Only time can tell.

2345: 

2346: 

2347: 

2348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2350: %                      BIBLIOGRAPHY

2351: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2352: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2353: 

2354: \bibitem{1}

2355: Sapirstein J R and Yennie D R 1990 in {\it Quantum

2356: Electrodynamics} (Editor: Kinoshita T, World Scientific )

2357: p.560.

2358: 

2359: \bibitem{2}

2360: Pachucki K \etal\ \jpb{29}{1996}{177}.

2361: 

2362: \bibitem{3}

2363: Barker W A  and Chraplyvy Z V \pr{89}{1953}{446};\\

2364: Chraplyvy Z V \pr{91}{1953}{388}; \pr{92}{1953}{1310}.

2365: 

2366: \bibitem{4}

2367: Barker W A and Glover F N \pr{99}{1955}{317}.

2368: 

2369: \bibitem{5}

2370: Udem Th \etal\ \prl{79}{1997}{2646}.

2371: 

2372: \bibitem{6}

2373: Schmidt-Kaler F \etal\ \prl{70}{1993}{2261}.

2374: 

2375: \bibitem{7}

2376: Yang J F 1994 Thesis for PhD (Fudan University); hep-th/9708104;\\

2377: Yang J F and Ni G J 1995 {\it Acta Physica Sinica} (Overseas Edition) {\bf

2378: 4} 88.

2379: 

2380: \bibitem[8a]{8:a}

2381: Ni G J and Chen S Q 1998 {\it Acta Physica Sinica} (Overseas Edition) {\bf

2382: 7} 401.

2383: 

2384: \bibitem[8b]{8:b}

2385: Ni G J, Yang G H, Fu R T and Wang H B 2001 {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.

2386: A} {\bf 16} 2873; \hepth{9906254}.

2387: 

2388: \bibitem[9]{9}

2389: Yang J F \prd{57}{1998}{4686}.

2390: 

2391: \bibitem[10]{10}

2392: Weitz M  \etal\ \pra{52}{1995}{2664}.

2393: 

2394: \bibitem[11]{11}

2395: Kinoshita T \prl{75}{1995}{4728}.

2396: 

2397: \bibitem[12]{12}

2398: Farnham D L \etal\ \prl{75}{1995}{3598}.

2399: 

2400: \bibitem[13]{13}

2401: Review of Particle Physics 2000 {\it Euro. Phys. J. C} {\bf 15} 350.

2402: 

2403: \bibitem[14]{14}

2404: Ni G J 2003 {\it Progress in Physics} (Nanjing, China) {\bf 23} 484

2405: ; \hepth{0206250}.

2406: 

2407: \bibitem[15]{15}

2408: Ni G J and Chen S Q 2003 {\it Advanced Quantum Mechanics 2nd.} (Fudan University Press); English Edition was

2409: published by the Rinton Press, 2002.

2410: 

2411: \bibitem[16]{16}

2412: Ni G J 2003 in {\it Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology}, Edit by Dvoeglazov V V and Espinoza Garrido A A,

2413: Chapter 10 (NOVA Science Publisher); \physics{0302038}.

2414: 

2415: \bibitem[17]{17}

2416: Ni G J 2003 in {\it Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology}, Edit by Dvoeglazov V V and Espinoza Garrido A A,

2417: Chapter 11 (NOVA Science Publisher); \hepph{0306028}; preprint, \hepph{0404030}, to be published

2418: in {\it Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology}.

2419: 

2420: \bibitem[18]{18}

2421: Ni G J and Chen S Q 1997 {\it J. Fudan University} (Natural Science)

2422: {\bf 36} 247; \hepth{9708156};\\

2423: in {\it Proceedings of International Workshop, Lorentz Group, CPT and

2424: Neutrinos}, Zacatocas, Maxico, June 23-26, 1999 (World Scientific,

2425: 2000), p.450.

2426: 

2427: \bibitem[19]{19}

2428: Gross D J and Neveu A \prd{10}{1974}{3235}.

2429: 

2430: \bibitem[20]{20}

2431: Ni G J and Wang H B 1998 {\it Physics Since Parity Breaking}, edited by

2432: Wang F (World Scientific, Singapore) p.436; \hepph{9708457}.

2433: 

2434: \bibitem[21]{21}

2435: Sakurai J J 1967 {\it Advanced Quantum Mechanics} (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company).

2436: 

2437: \bibitem[22]{22}

2438: Itzykson C  and Zuber J-B 1980 {\it Quantum Field Theory} (McGraw-Hill Book Company).

2439: 

2440: \bibitem[23]{23}

2441: Peskin M E  and Schroeder D V 1995 {\it An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory} (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company).

2442: 

2443: \bibitem[24]{24}

2444: Ni G J, Lou S Y, Lu W F and Yang J F 1998 {\it Science in China}

2445: (Series A), {\bf 41} 1206; \hepph{9801264}.

2446: 

2447: \bibitem[25]{25}

2448: Feng S S  and Ni G J 1999 {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. A} {\bf 14} 4259.

2449: 

2450: \bibitem[26]{26}

2451: Ni G J, Wang H B, Yan J and Li H L 2000 {\it High Energy Physics and

2452: Nuclear Physics}{\bf 24} 400.

2453: 

2454: \bibitem[27]{27}

2455: Eides M I, Grotch H and Shelyuto V A \prep{342}{2001}{63-261}.

2456: 

2457: \bibitem[28]{28}

2458: Huber A , Udem Th, Gross B  \etal\ \prl{80}{1998}{468}.

2459: 

2460: \bibitem[29]{29}

2461: Bethe H A \pr{72}{1947}{339}.

2462: 

2463: \bibitem[30]{30}

2464: T. A. Welton \pr{74}{1948}{1157}.

2465: 

2466: \bibitem[31]{31}

2467: Jentschura U D , Mohr P  J  and Soff G \prl{82}{1999}{53}.

2468: 

2469: \bibitem[32]{32}

2470: Drake G  W  F   and Swainson R  A \pra{41}{1990}{1243}.

2471: 

2472: \bibitem[33]{33}

2473: Ni G J 2004 \physics{0407092} accepted by "{\it Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology}".

2474: 

2475: \bibitem[34]{34}

2476: Marsch E 2005 {\it Ann. Phys.} (Leipzig) {\bf 14} No.5 324.

2477: 

2478: \bibitem[35]{35}

2479: Dai Xianxi 1977 {\it Journal of Fudan University} No.1 100.

2480: 

2481: \bibitem[36]{36}

2482: Ni G J and Chen S Q 1995 {\it Levinson Theorem, Anomaly and the Phase Transition of Vacuum}

2483: (Shanghai Scientific \& Technical Publishers).

2484: 

2485: \bibitem[37]{37}

2486:  Ma Z Q  and  Ni G J \prd{31}{1985}{1482}.

2487: 

2488: \bibitem[38]{38}

2489: Weinberg S 1995 {\it The Quantum Theory of Fields} Vol.I-II (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

2490: 

2491: \bibitem[39]{39}

2492: Amsler C \etal\ {\it Particle Physics Booklet} \plb{667}{2008}{1}

2493: 

2494: \bibitem[40]{40}

2495: Lou S Y  and Ni G J \prd{40}{1989}{3040}

2496: 

2497: \bibitem[41]{41}

2498: Ni G J, Chen S Q, Lou S Y and Xu J J  {\it Essence of Special

2499: Relativity, Reduced Dirac Equation and Antigravity},\ Preprint.

2500: 

2501: \bibitem[42]{42} Ni G J, Xu J J and Lou S Y {\it Puzzles of Divergence and

2502: Renormalization in Quantum Field Theory},\ Preprint.

2503: 

2504: \bibitem[43]{43} 

2505: Niering M \etal,  \prl{84}{2000}{5496}

2506: 

2507: \bibitem[44]{44} 

2508: Schwob C \etal,  \prl{82}{1999}{4960}

2509: 

2510: \bibitem[45]{45} 

2511: de Beauvoir B \etal, 2000 {\it Eur. Phys. J} D {\bf 12} 61

2512: 

2513: 

2514: \end{thebibliography}

2515: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2517: \begin{figure*}[!h]

2518: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig1.pdf}}

2519: \vskip 0.5cm

2520: \caption{

2521: A hydrogenlike atom in quantum mechanical description. The nucleus with mass $m_2$ occupies a small sphere with radius $r_N$

2522: (greatly exaggerated in the diagram) while the electron with mass $m_1$ spreads over a larger sphere with radius $R_e$

2523: (\ie atomic radius). Their common center is the atom's center of mass (CM). The wavefunction $\psi({\bf r})e^{-iEt}$ with

2524: ${\bf r}={\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2$ shows the electron's amplitude under a "fictitious measurement" \cite{15}, during which the

2525: electron and nucleus shrink into two "fictitious point particles " located at ${\bf r}_1$ and ${\bf r}_2$ simultaneously.

2526: The Coulomb potential $V(r)=-\frac{Ze^2}{r}$ between them is a static one. The probability

2527: to find the electron at ${\bf r}$ is $|\psi({\bf r})|^2$ while that to find its momentum being ${\bf p}$ is $|\phi({\bf p})|^2$ with

2528: $\phi({\bf p})$ being the Fourier transform of $\psi({\bf r})$.

2529: }

2530: \end{figure*}

2531: 

2532: \begin{figure*}[!h]

2533: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig2.pdf}}

2534: \vskip 0.5cm

2535: \caption{Four Feynman diagrams at one-loop level (in covariant form). (a) and (b) are self-energy diagrams of the electron.

2536: (c) is vacuum polarization. (d) is vertex function. Solid lines and wavy lines refer to electron and photon

2537: respectively, while X denotes the nucleus. Here $p,q$ and $k$ are

2538: four-dimensional momenta.}

2539: \end{figure*}

2540: 

2541: \begin{figure*}[!h]

2542: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=1.3]{e1.pdf}}

2543: \vskip 0.5cm

2544: \caption{

2545: The electron self-energy (radiative correction) diagram at one-loop level of perturbative QCD in noncovariant form.

2546: $H_{int}^{(1)}$ (A.2) or $H_{int}^{(2)}$ (A.4) is inserted into two vertices. Here $\bf p,q$ and $\bf k$ are three

2547: dimensional momenta.

2548: }

2549: \end{figure*}

2550: 

2551: %\end{CJK*}

2552: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2553: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2554: \end{document}

2555: